Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

From: Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
Date: 2016-04-04 15:25:56
Message-ID: 57028784.6050107@redhat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 04/01/2016 04:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On April 1, 2016 10:25:51 PM GMT+02:00, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 03/31/2016 06:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On March 31, 2016 11:13:46 PM GMT+02:00, Jesper Pedersen
>> <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can do a USE_CONTENT_LOCK run on 0003 if it is something for 9.6.
>>>
>>> Yes please. I think the lock variant is realistic, the lockless did
>> isn't.
>>>
>>
>> I have done a run with -M prepared on unlogged running 10min per data
>> point, up to 300 connections. Using data + wal on HDD.
>>
>> I'm not seeing a difference between with and without USE_CONTENT_LOCK
>> --
>> all points are within +/- 0.5%.
>>
>> Let me know if there are other tests I can perform
>
> How do either compare to just 0002 applied?
>

0001 + 0002 compared to 0001 + 0002 + 0003 (either way) were pretty much
the same +/- 0.5% on the HDD run.

Best regards,
Jesper

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-04-04 15:54:08 Re: SSL indicator in psql prompt
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-04-04 15:23:34 Re: postgres_fdw : altering foreign table not invalidating prepare statement execution plan.