| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: CommitDelay performance improvement |
| Date: | 2001-02-27 09:56:07 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368219@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I agree that 30k looks like the magic delay, and probably 30/5 would be a
> > good conservative choice. But now I think about the choice of number, I
> > think it must vary with the speed of the machine and length of the
> > transactions; at 20tps, each TX is completing in around 50ms.
I think disk speed should probably be the main factor.
After the first run 30k/5 also seemed the best here, but running the test
again shows, that the results are only reproducible after a new initdb.
Anybody else see reproducible results without previous initdb ?
One thing I noticed is, that WAL_FILES needs to be at least 4, because
one run fills up to 3 logfiles, and we don't want to measure WAL formating.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2001-02-27 10:18:09 | Re: AW: CommitDelay performance improvement |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2001-02-27 09:55:04 | Re: Idea for reducing planning time |