Re: [HACKERS] performance test
От | Vadim Mikheev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] performance test |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 36A3FBB6.B37475A3@krs.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | performance test (Michael Meskes <Michael.Meskes@usa.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] performance test
Re: [HACKERS] performance test |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Meskes wrote: > > I tried inserting 15000 tuples each in two tables via pgsql and timed it. > After insertion I also created btree indeces on both tables. > ... > > Then I switched to 6.5 without -F: > real 2m35.833s > user 0m2.900s > sys 0m3.910s > ... > > Then I switched on -F: > real 1m11.573s > user 0m3.150s > sys 0m3.760s > > I've seen even bigger advantages of -F. You've seen disadvantages of our unperfect buffer manager -:) When server need in buffer for new data comming and there is no unused buffers in pool (i.e. - all buffers filled with new data and marked as dirty), server gets some dirty buffer, writes it AND FSYNC file. So, server does many fsyncs even with BEGIN/END while should do _one_ fsync at COMMIT. Having this problem fixed you wouldn't had so big difference between -F and BEGIN/END-no-F. Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: