Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A521F9FB20F
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:26:30 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 98818-09 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:26:14 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:15:00.375883 by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from smtp4.clear.net.nz (smtp4.clear.net.nz [203.97.37.64])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C68D9FB1CE
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:26:25 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (218-101-28-54.dsl.clear.net.nz [218.101.28.54])
	by smtp4.clear.net.nz (CLEAR Net Mail)
	with ESMTP id <0J9G00HVPWMPNM20@smtp4.clear.net.nz> for
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:11:14 +1300 (NZDT)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:11:12 +1300
From: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
Subject: Re: RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction
In-reply-to: <200611281145.44277.josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org>,
	"Carlos H. Reimer" <carlos.reimer@opendb.com.br>,
	"Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>, Brad Nicholson <bnichols@ca.afilias.info>
Message-id: <456CDE30.4010502@paradise.net.nz>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <20061127005143.GJ39519@nasby.net>
	<PEEPKDFEHHEMKBBFPOOKMEAIDKAA.carlos.reimer@opendb.com.br>
	<20061128192036.GB7489@andi-lap.la.revver.com>
	<200611281145.44277.josh@agliodbs.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20061101)
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200611/259
X-Sequence-Number: 22029

Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
> 
> The Bizgres project is working on resource management for PostgreSQL.  So far, 
> however, they have been able to come up with schemes that work for BI/DW at 
> the expense of OLTP.  Becuase of O^N lock checking issues, resource 
> management for OLTP which doesn't greatly reduce overall performance seems a 
> near-impossible task.
> 

Right - I guess it is probably more correct to say that the 
implementation used in Bizgres is specifically targeted at BI/DW 
workloads rather than OLTP.

At this point we have not measured its impact on concurrency in anything 
other than a handwaving manner - e.g pgbench on an older SMP system 
showed what looked like about a 10% hit. However the noise level for 
pgbench is typically >10% so - a better benchmark on better hardware is 
  needed.

Cheers

Mark