Re: [PERFORM] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris
От | Jignesh K. Shah |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4721EAAE.3020801@sun.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
The problem I saw was first highlighted by EAStress runs with PostgreSQL on Solaris with 120-150 users. I just replicated that via my smaller internal benchmark that we use here to recreate that problem. EAStress should be just fine to highlight it.. Just put pg_clog on O_DIRECT or something so that all IOs go to disk making it easier to observe. In the meanwhile I will try to get more information. Regards, Jignesh Tom Lane wrote: > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: > >> Didn't we already go through this? He and Simon were pushing to bump up >> NUM_CLOG_BUFFERS and you were arguing that the test wasn't representative and >> some other clog.c would have to be reengineered to scale well to larger >> values. >> > > AFAIR we never did get any clear explanation of what the test case is. > I guess it must be write-mostly, else lazy XID assignment would have > helped this by reducing the rate of XID consumption. > > It's still true that I'm leery of a large increase in the number of > buffers without reengineering slru.c. That code was written on the > assumption that there were few enough buffers that a linear search > would be fine. I'd hold still for 16, or maybe even 32, but I dunno > how much impact that will have for such a test case. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: