Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC4D6324AC for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:38:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 34914-07 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:38:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1609D6324B6 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:38:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (static-71-179-240-8.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MQA9X-1Ocdru2803-005Pmo; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:38:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4C59CFC8.4000701@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:38:32 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Grittner CC: Hannu Krosing , Robert Haas , Peter Hussey , pgsql-performance , Tom Lane Subject: Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem References: <18551.1280275502@sss.pgh.pa.us> <25534.1280498632@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1280819031.14579.38.camel@hvost> <1280944268.3735.12.camel@hvost> <22961.1280944836@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1280947287.3735.56.camel@hvost> <1280948634.3735.69.camel@hvost> <4C59BCA8.2060603@2ndquadrant.com> <4C59800002000025000341F7@gw.wicourts.gov> In-Reply-To: <4C59800002000025000341F7@gw.wicourts.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Kfy1JM1ajjOEQl2Ra5mhTIkAnQ7fDfGRTwwFRF3NWYx 6LRF34ubaOL+lZfJ6ePBQvTOP+H5llLMjuItpv4ueu3E/kIdBR 9p6uea0KDc0tPTqoRIK68bShCepcF4YwBkffiicDzdjnY2AFwz NBmA0nJ9JvmEyIWia1GcjkQQB6TcWN1DiG9JSOu75IoeDw7FRa yKCTT9L/DxrZ5a14i8yEF1jjDvtdfkR9gjnNQsiR+c= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201008/60 X-Sequence-Number: 39903 Kevin Grittner wrote: > Assuming this is real, and not just "in the noise" -- what conclusions would you > draw from this? Was trying to demonstrate the general ability of pg_stat_bgwriter snapshots at points in time to directly measure the buffer activity Hannu was theorizing about, not necessarily show a useful benchmark of any sort with that. Watching pgbench create a database isn't all that interesting unless you either a) increase the database scale such that at least one timed checkpoint kicks in, or b) turn on archive_mode so the whole WAL COPY optimization is defeated. More on this topic later, just happened to have that little example script ready to demonstrate the measurement concept. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us