From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic |
Date: | 2009-07-27 16:05:07 |
Message-ID: | 4A6DD033.8060409@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
>> To performance test this properly you might need to devise a test
>> that will use a sufficiently different order of queueing items to
>> show the difference.
>>
>
> It would appear that I need help with devising a proper test. So far,
> all tests have shown no difference in performance based on the patch;
> I get almost twice the speed as a single job running in one database
> transaction either way. Can someone explain what I should try to set
> up to get a "best case" and a "worst case" for the patch? Our
> production databases don't expose any difference, but I'm willing to
> try to use them to "seed" an artificial case which will.
>
>
Does your test case have lots of foreign keys?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-07-27 16:14:36 | Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-07-27 16:02:32 | Re: [RFC] new digest datatypes, or generic fixed-len hex types? |