Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1Ksn+yCfDUYeC8xx3aB8XyuTAyXgepZjKwvfqYFDujDCA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > That being said, I'm ready to do some benchmarking on this, so that we have > at least some numbers to argue about. Can we agree on a set of workloads > that we want to benchmark in the first round? > I think if we can get data for pgbench read-write workload when data doesn't fit in shared buffers but fit in RAM, that can give us some indication. We can try by varying the ratio of shared buffers w.r.t data. This should exercise the checksum code both when buffers are evicted and at next read. I think it also makes sense to check the WAL data size for each of those runs. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: