| From: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes |
| Date: | 2016-09-11 07:16:04 |
| Message-ID: | 91b24fbc-2dc5-eaa0-d601-f2fe861794d9@catalyst.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/09/16 17:01, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Mark Kirkwood
> <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:
>>
>> performed several 10 hour runs on size 100 database using 32 and 64 clients.
>> For the last run I rebuilt with assertions enabled. No hangs or assertion
>> failures.
>>
> Thanks for verification. Do you think we can do some read-only
> workload benchmarking using this server? If yes, then probably you
> can use concurrent hash index patch [1] and cache the metapage patch
> [2] (I think Mithun needs to rebase his patch) to do so.
>
>
>
> [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1J6b8O4PcEPqRxNYbLVbfToNMJEEm+qn0jZX31-obXrJw@mail.gmail.com
> [2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD__OuhJ29CeBif_fLGe4t9Vj_-cFXBwCXhjO+D_16TXbemY+g@mail.gmail.com
>
>
I can do - are we checking checking for hangs/assertions or comparing
patched vs unpatched performance (for the metapage patch)?
regards
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2016-09-11 09:31:08 | Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2016-09-11 07:04:55 | Re: [PATCH] Alter or rename enum value |