pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>
Cc: "Harold A. Giménez" <harold.gimenez@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Checkpointer split has broken things dramatically (was Re: DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:56:05 -0400
Message-ID: <17623.1342590965@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <500634C8.8030302@2ndQuadrant.com>
References: <4FFCCAC4.4030503@ringerc.id.au>
	<CAAZKuFYsK+ZQuC=zf0xE=M-LNa02tB7RBy3CHEUyq7LWCkK6jQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMkU=1ydaypgAeZxyaMc=KhJJw5riGMBiLpvSqOO42=qArRZmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<32078D4B40DD40ECB739D0ECD7D95996@gmail.com>
	<CAMkU=1zJK6WiS9-6eO8rNmRpKSSB4=uw2mTsD=k64mNh__=Dcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMkU=1w7vLA63hf-+Uc_j61CvOdKixsOHph9d0H-aLNBYgfX=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMkU=1yLXvODRZZ_=fgrEeJfk2tvZPTTD-8n8BwrAhNz_WBT0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<19949.1342376967@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoaTf=zjP37-oG7fr1VbGfuvHSfpajgLZ65EeSJX2mmquA@mail.gmail.com>
	<9603.1342454919@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+Tgmoa4ta60Y-rZpEPDRCQKJV8-Uqe0P610Jgj2q7e+fondig@mail.gmail.com>
	<11952.1342456591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoYRXMWQ_DGmmqu3Zp8oW3Lt-9Lc1q3EHaV_ZmjWqaPkuA@mail.gmail.com>
	<13011.1342457859@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoaEPLo5fmBX1JSkGK3umAamFVghwY7qDb4_QqzteZgUPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<15955.1342466333@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoYnqP! f03rYJo3G6dMrqShQF2iMtfpYBPgWdxtEdacaX-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<9247.1342565810@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<500634C8.8! 030302@2ndQuadrant.com>

Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 07/17/2012 06:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Furthermore, I would say that any performance testing done since then,
>> if it wasn't looking at purely read-only scenarios, isn't worth the
>> electrons it's written on.  In particular, any performance gain that
>> anybody might have attributed to the checkpointer splitup is very
>> probably hogwash.

> There hasn't been any performance testing that suggested the 
> checkpointer splitup was justified.  The stuff I did showed it being 
> flat out negative for a subset of pgbench oriented cases, which didn't 
> seem real-world enough to disprove it as the right thing to do though.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that this means we should revert the
checkpointer split.  What I *am* worried about is that we may have been
hacking other things on the basis of faulty performance tests.

			regards, tom lane



view thread (21+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <17623.1342590965@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../17623.1342590965@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/17623.1342590965@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, greg@2ndQuadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, jeff.janes@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, daniel@heroku.com, ringerc@ringerc.id.au, harold.gimenez@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: Checkpointer split has broken things dramatically (was Re: DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation)
  In-Reply-To: <17623.1342590965@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox