Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes

From: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Curtis Faith <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Pgsql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes
Date: 2002-10-06 23:35:12
Message-ID: 1033947313.14317.42.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 18:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> CPU loading goes from 80% idle at 1 client to 50% idle at 5 clients
> to <10% idle at 10 or more.
>
> So this does seem to be a nice win, and unless I hear objections
> I will apply it ...
>

Wow Tom! That's wonderful! On the other hand, maybe people needed the
extra idle CPU time that was provided by the unpatched code. ;)

Greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2002-10-07 00:59:45 Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-10-06 23:07:30 Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes