Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTi=ZM=uBE70qLsuPL6W7pe47GvQ+VLui7WgdDneH@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19 (Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> wrote: > pgbench -i -s 50 test > Two runs of "pgbench -c 10 -M prepared -T 600 test" with 1 sync standby - > server configs etc were mailed upthread. > >> - performance as of commit e148443ddd95cd29edf4cc1de6188eb9cee029c5 > > 1158 and 1306 (avg 1232) >> >> - performance as of current git master > > 1181 and 1280 (avg 1230,5) >> >> - performance as of current git master with >> sync-standbys-defined-rearrangement applied > > 1152 and 1269 (avg 1210,5) Hmm, that doesn't appear to show the 20% regression Simon claimed upthread. That's good... but I'm confused as to how you are getting numbers this high at all without a BBU. If every commit has to wait for two consecutive fsyncs, cranking out 1200+ commits per second is a lot. Maybe it's just barely plausible if these are 15K drives and all the commits are piggybacking on the fsyncs at top speed, but, man, that's fast. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: