| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Recalculating OldestXmin in a long-running vacuum |
| Date: | 2007-03-27 17:10:05 |
| Message-ID: | 46094FED.4010508@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> So are you stopping work on the patch? I assume so.
>
>> Yes, at least for now. I can't believe the patch actually hurts
>> performance, but I'm not going to spend time investigating it.
>
> Are we withdrawing the patch from consideration for 8.3 then?
> I had assumed it was still a live candidate, but if it seems to
> lose in pgbench maybe we had better set it aside.
I haven't tried pgbench, the tests I ran were with DBT-2.
Just to summarize again: the patch did help to keep the stock table
smaller, but the response times were higher with the patch.
Maybe we should keep this issue open until we resolve the vacuum WAL
flush issue? I can then rerun the same tests to see if this patch is a
win after that.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-27 17:15:43 | Re: Recalculating OldestXmin in a long-running vacuum |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-27 17:02:41 | Re: Recalculating OldestXmin in a long-running vacuum |