Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: "Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <49C01900.5030406@sun.com>
References: <49B824DD.7090302@sun.com> <49B7F470.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
	<29080.1236821556@sss.pgh.pa.us> <49B87161.10201@sun.com>
	<1237225198.3963.60.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> <49C01900.5030406@sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:59:38 +0000
Message-Id: <1237330778.3953.139.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 17:41 -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:

> I did a quick test with patch. Unfortunately it improves my number
> even with default setting 0 (not sure whether I should be pleased or
> sad - Definitely no overhead infact seems to help performance a bit.
> NOTE: Logic is same, implementation is slightly different for default
> set)

OK, I bite. 25% gain from doing nothing??? You're stretching my... err,
credulity.

I like the train of thought for setting 1 and it is worth investigating,
but something feels wrong somewhere.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support