Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring
Date: 2007-03-10 00:33:38
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0703091923300.9297@westnet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Jim Nasby wrote:

> I'm wondering if pg_bench is a good test of this stuff. ISTM it's
> unrealistically write-heavy, which is going to tend to not only put a
> lot of dirty buffers into the pool, but also keep them pinned enough
> that you can't write them.

Whether it's "unrealistically" write-heavy kind of depends on what your
real app is. The standard pgbench is a bit weird because it does so many
updates to tiny tables, which adds a level of locking contention that
doesn't really reflect many real-world situations. But the no-branch mode
(update/select to accounts, insert into history) isn't too dissimilar from
some insert-heavy logging applications I've seen.

The main reason I brought this all up was because Itagaki seemed to be
using pgbench for some of his performance tests. I just wanted to point
out that the LRU background writer specifically tends to be very
underutilized when using pgbench.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-03-10 00:43:15 Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-03-10 00:18:16 Re: autovacuum next steps, take 3