Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: write scalability

From: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: write scalability
Date: 2011-07-26 16:29:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Pavan Deolasee
> <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On 07/25/2011 04:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>> I did 5-minute pgbench runs with unlogged tables and with permanent
>>>>> tables, restarting the database server and reinitializing the tables
>>>>> between each run.
>>>> Database scale?  One or multiple pgbench worker threads?  A reminder on the
>>>> amount of RAM in the server would be helpful for interpreting the results
>>>> too.
>>> Ah, sorry.  scale = 100, so small.  pgbench invocation is:
>> It might be worthwhile to test only with the accounts and history
>> table and also increasing the number of statements in a transaction.
>> Otherwise the tiny tables can quickly become a bottleneck.
> What kind of bottleneck?

So many transactions trying to update a small set of rows in a table.
Is that what we really want to measure ? My thinking is that we might
see different result if they are updating different parts of the table
and the transaction start/stop overhead is spread across few


Pavan Deolasee

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2011-07-26 16:33:04
Subject: Re: write scalability
Previous:From: David FetterDate: 2011-07-26 16:27:59
Subject: Re: vacuumlo patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group