Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98831AB3538
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 18 Jul 2012 02:56:28 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) id 1SrNFH-00078G-Bv
	for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 05:56:27 +0000
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6I5u5SV017624;
	Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:56:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>, Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>,
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Harold_A=2E_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gim=E9nez=22?=
	<harold.gimenez@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Checkpointer split has broken things dramatically (was Re: DELETE
	vs TRUNCATE explanation)
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>
	message dated "Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:00:08 -0400"
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:56:05 -0400
Message-ID: <17623.1342590965@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201207/782
X-Sequence-Number: 211465

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