Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes

From: "Curtis Faith" <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com>
To: "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: "Pgsql-Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes
Date: 2002-10-08 14:00:06
Message-ID: DMEEJMCDOJAKPPFACMPMMEGBCEAA.curtis@galtair.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> You example of >1 trx/proc/rev will wok _only_ if no more and no less
> than 1/4 of platter is filled by _other_ log writers.

Not really, if 1/2 the platter has been filled we'll still get in one more
commit in for a given rotation. If more than a rotation's worth of writing
has occurred that means we are bumping into the limit of disk I/O and that
it the limit that we can't do anything about without doing interleaved log
files.

> > The case of bulk inserts is one where I would expect that for
> simple tables
> > we should be able to peg the disks given today's hardware and enough
> > inserting processes.
>
> bulk inserts should probably be chunked at higher level by inserting
> several records inside a single transaction.

Agreed, that's much more efficient. There are plenty of situations where
the inserts and updates are ongoing rather than initial, Shridhar's
real-world test or TPC benchmarks, for example.

- Curtis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Clift 2002-10-08 14:04:40 Re: Hot Backup
Previous Message Curtis Faith 2002-10-08 13:53:16 Re: Dirty Buffer Writing [was Proposed LogWriter Scheme]