Re: checkpointer continuous flushing

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: checkpointer continuous flushing
Date: 2016-01-16 09:01:25
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.10.1601160945320.18181@sto
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Hello Andres,

> I measured it in a different number of cases, both on SSDs and spinning
> rust. I just reproduced it with:
>
> postgres-ckpt14 \
> -D /srv/temp/pgdev-dev-800/ \
> -c maintenance_work_mem=2GB \
> -c fsync=on \
> -c synchronous_commit=off \
> -c shared_buffers=2GB \
> -c wal_level=hot_standby \
> -c max_wal_senders=10 \
> -c max_wal_size=100GB \
> -c checkpoint_timeout=30s
>
> Using a fresh cluster each time (copied from a "template" to save time)
> and using
> pgbench -M prepared -c 16 -j 16 -T 300 -P 1

I'm running some tests similar to those above...

Do you do some warmup when testing? I guess the answer is "no".

I understand that you have 8 cores/16 threads on your host?

Loading scale 800 data for 300 seconds tests takes much more than 300
seconds (init takes ~360 seconds, vacuum & index are slow). With 30
seconds checkpoint cycles and without any warmup, I feel that these tests
are really on the very short (too short) side, so I'm not sure how much I
can trust such results as significant. The data I reported were with more
real life like parameters.

Anyway, I'll have some results to show with a setting more or less similar
to yours.

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2016-01-16 09:57:45 Re: pgindent-polluted commits
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2016-01-16 08:06:44 Re: checkpointer continuous flushing