Re: pgbench -i spends all its time doing CHECKPOINT

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgbench -i spends all its time doing CHECKPOINT
Date: 2002-01-06 18:01:41
Message-ID: 200201061801.g06I1fb24803@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Could we remove lines 552-560 of pgbench.c? The behavior that guarded
> > against is long gone, and forcing a checkpoint every few thousand tuples
> > seems to be putting a huge crimp in the speed of pgbench -i ...
>
> Yup. Maybe we could ifdef'ed out until we implement true UNDO...

I think we should just remove it. The idea that we are going to do UNDO
which allows unlimited log file growth for long transactions seems like
a loser to me.

Actually, that brings up a question I had. In 7.1.0, we didn't recycle
WAL segements that were used by open transactions during CHECKPOINT,
while in 7.1.3 and later, we do recycle them after CHECKPOINT. My
question is if we do a big transaction that needs 10 log segments, do we
force an early CHECKPOINT to clear out the WAL segments or do we just
wait for the proper interval?

--
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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-01-06 18:37:34 Re: pgbench -i spends all its time doing CHECKPOINT
Previous Message Doug McNaught 2002-01-06 14:24:21 Re: fork() while connected