| From: | Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions |
| Date: | 2005-07-20 16:16:26 |
| Message-ID: | 59d991c405072009163b149809@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 7/19/05, Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It looks like the CVS HEAD is definately "better," but not by a huge
> amount. The only difference is I wasn't run autovacuum in the
> background (default settings), but I don't think this explains it.
> Here's a graph of the differences and density of behavior:
>
> http://blog.amber.org/diagrams/pgsql_copy_803_cvs.png
>
> I can provide the raw data. Each COPY was 500 rows. Note that fsync
> is turned off here. Maybe it'd be more stable with it turned on?
I've updated this with trend-lines.
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-07-20 17:01:41 | Re: Optimizer seems to be way off, why? |
| Previous Message | Christopher Petrilli | 2005-07-20 15:52:52 | Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions |
