| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Date: | 2017-01-23 07:30:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Ksn+yCfDUYeC8xx3aB8XyuTAyXgepZjKwvfqYFDujDCA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> That being said, I'm ready to do some benchmarking on this, so that we have
> at least some numbers to argue about. Can we agree on a set of workloads
> that we want to benchmark in the first round?
>
I think if we can get data for pgbench read-write workload when data
doesn't fit in shared buffers but fit in RAM, that can give us some
indication. We can try by varying the ratio of shared buffers w.r.t
data. This should exercise the checksum code both when buffers are
evicted and at next read. I think it also makes sense to check the
WAL data size for each of those runs.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-01-23 07:48:42 | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Previous Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2017-01-23 07:29:32 | Re: macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support |