From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency? |
Date: | 2019-07-03 15:42:49 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaRSiD0=ufEsL6sfKecHuxFWqAMcQvqOdoLJdPWS2Nokg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:24 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Maybe. And it would probably work for the systems I used for benchmarks.
>
> It however assumes two things: (a) the storage system actually has
> spindles and (b) you know how many spindles there are. Which is becoming
> less and less safe these days - flash storage becomes pretty common, and
> even when there are spindles they are often hidden behind the veil of
> virtualization in a SAN, or something.
Yeah, that's true.
> I wonder if we might provide something like pg_test_prefetch which would
> measure performance with different values, similarly to pg_test_fsync.
That's not a bad idea, but I'm not sure if the results that we got in
a synthetic test - presumably unloaded - would be a good guide to what
to use in a production situation. Maybe it would; I'm just not sure.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-03 15:49:30 | Re: [PATCH v5] Show detailed table persistence in \dt+ |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-07-03 15:24:12 | Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency? |