|From:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|To:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Cc:||Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: checkpointer continuous flushing|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
>> To emphasize potential bad effects without having to build too large a host
>> and involve too many table spaces, I would suggest to reduce significantly
>> the "checkpoint_flush_after" setting while running these tests.
> Meh, that completely distorts the test.
Yep, I agree.
The point would be to show whether there is a significant impact, or not,
with less hardware & cost involved in the test.
Now if you can put 16 disks with 16 table spaces with 16 buffers per
bucket, that is good, fine with me! I'm just trying to point out that you
could probably get comparable relative results with 4 disks, 4 tables
spaces and 4 buffers per bucket, so it is an alternative and less
expensive testing strategy.
This just shows that I usually work on a tight (negligeable?) budget:-)
|Next Message||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI||2016-03-22 10:14:33||Re: pgbench - allow backslash-continuations in custom scripts|
|Previous Message||Alexander Korotkov||2016-03-22 10:08:01||Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics|