| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Date: | 2015-09-10 03:59:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KejvcnbeUscBFFp_oShEearUYHqBi90i-Z7ZjxrQ8O_Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Amit,
>
>>> I think that we may conclude, on these run:
>>>
>>> (1) sorting seems not to harm performance, and may help a lot.
>>
>>
>> I agree with first part, but about helping a lot, I am not sure
>
>
> I'm focussing on the "sort" dimension alone, that is I'm comparing the
average tps performance with sorting with the same test without sorting, :
There are 4 cases from your tests, if I'm not mistaken:
>
> - T1 flush=off 27480 -> 27482 : +0.0%
> - T1 flush=on 25214 -> 26819 : +6.3%
> - T2 flush=off 5050 -> 6194 : +22.6%
> - T2 flush=on 2771 -> 6110 : +120.4%
>
There is a clear win only in cases when sort is used with flush, apart
from that using sort alone doesn't have any clear advantage.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2015-09-10 03:59:47 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Map basebackup tablespaces using a tablespace_map file |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-09-10 03:49:46 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Map basebackup tablespaces using a tablespace_map file |