Обсуждение: Performance and 72.devel

I checked out the latest updates about 14 hours ago.

I've also put together a new box, featuring an Athlon running at 1.3 Mhz. I cloned the OS (Red Hat Linux 7.1) - I'd
copiedit from one disk to another fairly recently, and so the software setup is pretty well precisely what I've been
usingall along. 

A job which took well over three hours on my Pentium II@133 (mostly CPU time) runs in a little over two (mostly I/O), a
resultthat doesn't surprise me a lot. 

It crossed my mind that PG is probably using new log files all the time:


2001-09-15 20:26:56 [30787]  DEBUG:  recycled transaction log file 0000000000000032
2001-09-15 20:29:36 [30788]  DEBUG:  recycled transaction log file 0000000000000033
2001-09-15 20:29:36 [30788]  DEBUG:  recycled transaction log file 0000000000000034
2001-09-15 20:35:11 [30791]  DEBUG:  recycled transaction log file 0000000000000035
2001-09-15 20:35:11 [30791]  DEBUG:  recycled transaction log file 0000000000000036

and so on.

I think that if it actually reused them instead of deleting old files and creating new ones then on my system (256
Mbytesof RAM) a few log files would fit entirely in cache and it would really fly. 

...
> I think that if it actually reused them instead of deleting old files...

That is in fact what it does for at least the upcoming 7.2 release.

                   - Thomas

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:


> ...
> > I think that if it actually reused them instead of deleting old files...
>
> That is in fact what it does for at least the upcoming 7.2 release.
>
>
It's not what I see now in 7.2devel. Unless the changes are uncommitted (or commited in the past few days) it's not
working.

Or if it is reusing them, it's renaming them too.

John Summerfield <pgtest@os2.ami.com.au> writes:
> Or if it is reusing them, it's renaming them too.

That is what the "recycling..." message is all about...

            regards, tom lane

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Tom Lane wrote:


> John Summerfield <pgtest@os2.ami.com.au> writes:
> > Or if it is reusing them, it's renaming them too.
>
> That is what the "recycling..." message is all about...
>

1) Why rename them?
2) Does anyone have a better idea how it floods my cache?

I'll try again when someone sorts out why CVS isn't working as described.