Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes
От | Mark Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9839a321-f655-998f-c42b-89b52dd7e7f8@catalyst.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes (Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/09/16 19:16, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > > > On 11/09/16 17:01, Amit Kapila wrote: >> ...Do you think we can do some read-only >> workload benchmarking using this server? If yes, then probably you >> can use concurrent hash index patch [1] and cache the metapage patch >> [2] (I think Mithun needs to rebase his patch) to do so. >> >> >> >> [1] - >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1J6b8O4PcEPqRxNYbLVbfToNMJEEm+qn0jZX31-obXrJw@mail.gmail.com >> [2] - >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD__OuhJ29CeBif_fLGe4t9Vj_-cFXBwCXhjO+D_16TXbemY+g@mail.gmail.com >> >> > > I can do - are we checking checking for hangs/assertions or comparing > patched vs unpatched performance (for the metapage patch)? > > So, assuming the latter - testing performance with and without the metapage patch: For my 1st runs: - cpus 16, ran 16G - size 100, clients 32 I'm seeing no difference in performance for read only (-S) pgbench workload (with everybody using has indexes). I guess not that surprising as the db fites in ram (1.6G and we have 16G). So I'll retry with a bigger dataset (suspect size 2000 is needed). regards Mark
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: