Re: CLOG Patch

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: CLOG Patch
Date: 2007-08-03 20:29:47
Message-ID: 1186172987.4136.18.camel@ebony.site
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 16:09 -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:

> This patch seems to work well (both with 32 and 64 value but not with 16
> and the default 8).

Could you test at 24 please also? Tom has pointed out the additional
cost of setting this higher, even in workloads that don't benefit from
the I/O-induced contention reduction.

> Is there a way we can integrate this in 8.3?

I just replied to Josh's thread on -hackers about this.

> This will improve out of box performance quite a bit for high number of
> users (atleat 30% in my OLTP test)

Yes, thats good. Will this have a dramatic effect on a particular
benchmark, or for what reason might we need this? Tom has questioned the
use case here, so I think it would be good to explain a little more for
everyone. Thanks.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

  • CLOG Patch at 2007-08-03 20:09:39 from Jignesh K. Shah

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Kroeger 2007-08-03 21:13:27 Re: Performance problems with large telemetric datasets on 7.4.2
Previous Message Jignesh K. Shah 2007-08-03 20:09:39 CLOG Patch