Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date: 2009-07-27 15:54:23
Message-ID: 4A6D875F0200002500028D83@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

> To performance test this properly you might need to devise a test
> that will use a sufficiently different order of queueing items to
> show the difference.

It would appear that I need help with devising a proper test. So far,
all tests have shown no difference in performance based on the patch;
I get almost twice the speed as a single job running in one database
transaction either way. Can someone explain what I should try to set
up to get a "best case" and a "worst case" for the patch? Our
production databases don't expose any difference, but I'm willing to
try to use them to "seed" an artificial case which will.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-07-27 16:02:32 Re: [RFC] new digest datatypes, or generic fixed-len hex types?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-07-27 15:41:05 Re: When is a record NULL?