From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay |
Date: | 2013-03-25 18:05:09 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLB8z7R2bZrGN5ROCNkUFr63u26=4+7rn9LbAiuiDZn4Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 25 March 2013 14:26, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> This is pretty similar to the proposal Atri and I just recently made.
> I am 100% in agreement that something must be done here...SELECT has
> none of the i/o mitigation features that vacuum has. Is your idea
> better? probably (although you have to give a small penalty for a user
> facing tunable)
I was hoping this was a new idea entirely, since I was focusing on
simply limiting foreground work rather than trying to work out how to
optimise foreground work or work out how to make background tasks work
better.
> but we need testing against real world workloads, or
> at least a much better synthetic one than pgbench, which per recent
> discussions is probably the top objective of the project (a
> performance farm, etc.).
Self-tuning the background workloads needs lots of testing. Limiting
foreground work needs very little, or none.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2013-03-25 18:07:02 | Re: Interesting post-mortem on a near disaster with git |
Previous Message | Darren Duncan | 2013-03-25 18:04:24 | Re: adding support for zero-attribute unique/etc keys |