Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Revert "commit_delay" change; just add comment that we don't hav
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Revert "commit_delay" change; just add comment that we don't hav |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6646.1345045918@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Revert "commit_delay" change; just add comment that we don't hav (Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > I'm not quite comfortable recommending a switch to milliseconds if > that implies a loss of sub-millisecond granularity. I know that > someone is going to point out that in some particularly benchmark, > they can get another relatively modest increase in throughput (perhaps > 2%-3%) by splitting the difference between two adjoining millisecond > integer values. In that scenario, I'd be tempted to point out that > that increase is quite unlikely to carry over to real-world benefits, > because the setting is then right on the cusp of where increasing > commit_delay stops helping throughput and starts hurting it. The > improvement is likely to get lost in the noise in the context of a > real-world application, where for example the actually cost of an > fsync is more variable. I'm just not sure that that's the right > attitude. To me it's more about future-proofing. commit_delay is the only time-interval setting we've got where reasonable values today are in the single-digit-millisecond range. So it seems to me not hard to infer that in a few years sub-millisecond values will be important, whether or not there's any real argument for them today. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: