Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions

From: Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions
Date: 2005-07-20 16:16:26
Message-ID: 59d991c405072009163b149809@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 7/19/05, Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It looks like the CVS HEAD is definately "better," but not by a huge
> amount.  The only difference is I wasn't run autovacuum in the
> background (default settings), but I don't think this explains it.
> Here's a graph of the differences and density of behavior:
> 
> http://blog.amber.org/diagrams/pgsql_copy_803_cvs.png
> 
> I can provide the raw data.  Each COPY was 500 rows.  Note that fsync
> is turned off here.  Maybe it'd be more stable with it turned on?

I've updated this with trend-lines.

Chris

-- 
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2005-07-20 17:01:41
Subject: Re: Optimizer seems to be way off, why?
Previous:From: Christopher PetrilliDate: 2005-07-20 15:52:52
Subject: Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group