Re: wal_buffers, redux
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: wal_buffers, redux |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZwdieQoSRn=riLs0uJJF3EefkQD2cA8ZDoXiA7esvkYA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: wal_buffers, redux (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: wal_buffers, redux
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nate Boley's machine, the difference was ~100% increase rather than > ~10%. Oh, right. I had forgotten how dramatic the changes were in those test runs. I guess I should be happy that the absolute numbers on this machine were as high as they were. This machine seems to be beating that one on every metric. > Do you think the difference is in the CPU architecture, or the > IO subsystem? That is an excellent question. I tried looking at vmstat output, but a funny thing kept happening: periodically, the iowait column would show a gigantic negative number instead of a number between 0 and 100.This makes me a little chary of believing any of it. Even if I did, I'm not sure that would fully answer the question. So I guess the short answer is that I don't know, and I'm not even sure how I might go about figuring it out. Any ideas? > Also, do you have the latency numbers? Not at the moment, but I'll generate them. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: