| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2016-01 Commitfest |
| Date: | 2016-01-25 21:18:28 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.10.1601252214250.1068@sto |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Andres,
> FWIW, I've been working and benchmarking this a lot over the last weeks.
I'm running a lot of tests as weel, on HDDs. It is basically always better
with the patch, although sometimes not sorting but flushing is better than
both, which suggest that the gucs should be kept just in case.
> After finally nailing down the performance regression due to wal writer,
> thins are looking good. I plan to post an updated version soon.
Good. The last version sent (14?) does not apply cleanly. I'm looking
forward to have another look at an updated version.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2016-01-25 21:18:54 | Re: [POC] FETCH limited by bytes. |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-01-25 20:35:33 | why pg_size_pretty is volatile? |