Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date: 2005-06-30 21:07:47
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > What I'm confused about is that this shouldn't be anything new for
> > 8.1.  Yet 8.1 has *worse* performance on the STP machines than 8.0
> > does, and it's pretty much entirely due to this check.
> That's simply not believable --- better recheck your analysis.  If 8.1
> is worse it's not because of page-dumping, because we are more efficient
> on that than before not less so.  Perhaps there's another issue?

Ach, I want to run head-to-head tests, but the system is down again.  


Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-06-30 21:16:11
Subject: Re: Constraint Exclusion (Partitioning) - Initial Review
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-30 21:06:22
Subject: Re: WAL oddities (8.0.3)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group