Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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