| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Lor <Robert(dot)Lor(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2006-07-24 01:29:39 |
| Message-ID: | 29920.1153704579@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Robert Lor <Robert(dot)Lor(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, those seem plausible, although the hold time for
>> CheckpointStartLock seems awfully high --- about 20 msec
>> per transaction. Are you using a nonzero commit_delay?
>>
> I didn't change commit_delay which defaults to zero.
Hmmm ... AFAICS this must mean that flushing the WAL data to disk
at transaction commit time takes (most of) 20 msec on your hardware.
Which still seems high --- on most modern disks that'd be at least two
disk revolutions, maybe more. What's the disk hardware you're testing
on, particularly its RPM spec?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | SAKATA Tetsuo | 2006-07-24 01:50:40 | why toast tables are not reindexed while clustering? |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2006-07-24 01:18:33 | Re: RESET CONNECTION? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Lor | 2006-07-24 03:34:25 | Re: Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Robert Lor | 2006-07-24 00:52:12 | Re: Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL |