| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CommitDelay performance improvement |
| Date: | 2001-02-26 00:17:03 |
| Message-ID: | 3A99A07F.4838662C@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > At 00:42 25/02/01 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
> >> The only really bad performers were (0), (10k,1), (100k,20). The best
> >> were (30k,1) and (30k,10), although (30k,5) also did well except at 40.
> >> Why would 30k be a magic delay, regardless of siblings? What happened
> >> at 40?
>
> > I had assumed that 40 was one of the glitches - it would be good if Tom (or
> > someone else) could rerun the suite, to see if we see the same dip.
>
> Yes, I assumed the same. I posted the script; could someone else make
> the same run? We really need more than one test case ;-)
>
I could find the sciript but seem to have missed your change
about commit_siblings. Where could I get it ?
Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Clift | 2001-02-26 00:18:37 | Re: beta5 packages ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-25 21:58:04 | Re: Re: offset and limit in update and subselect |