Re: 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1
Date: 2000-12-11 01:44:24
Message-ID: 200012110144.UAA15129@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> I've run tests (with 50 .. 250 simult users) for some PG project
> of my company. 7.1 was 3 times faster than 7.0.3 (fsync) but near
> 3 times slower than 7.0.3 (nofsync). It was not the best day in
> my life - WAL looked like big bottleneck -:(
>
> But finally I've realized that this test makes ~3 FK insertions
> ... and FK insert means SELECT FOR UPDATE ... and this could
> reduce # of commits per fsync.
>
> So, I've run simple test (below) to check this. Seems that 7.1
> is faster than 7.0.3 (nofsync), and that SELECT FOR UPDATE in RI
> triggers is quite bad for performance.
>
> Please take this into account when comparing 7.1 with 7.0.3.
> Also, we should add new TODO item: implement dirty reads
> and use them in RI triggers.

Added:

* Implement dirty reads and use them in RI triggers

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-12-11 01:51:52 Re: Re: COPY BINARY file format proposal
Previous Message Ross J. Reedstrom 2000-12-11 01:08:29 Re: Re: COPY BINARY file format proposal