pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive help / color / mirror / Atom feed From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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 10:30:40 +0300
Message-ID: <50066620.7090501@enterprisedb.com> (raw )
In-Reply-To: <CAEYLb_WBjrhRPuMgnUGHvXdp+VOaRKxbJ0_vYooemMQKx=QjHA@mail.gmail.com >
References: <4FFCCAC4.4030503@ringerc.id.au >
<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+TgmoYnqPf03rYJo3G6dMrqShQF2iMtfpYBPgWdxtEdacaX-w@mail.gmail.com >
<9247.1342565810@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<CAEYLb_WBjrhRPuMgnUGHvXdp+VOaRKxbJ0_vYooemMQKx=QjHA@mail.gmail.com >
On 18.07.2012 02:48, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 17 July 2012 23:56, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> This implies that nobody has done pull-the-plug testing on either HEAD
>> or 9.2 since the checkpointer split went in (2011-11-01), because even
>> a modicum of such testing would surely have shown that we're failing to
>> fsync a significant fraction of our write traffic.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> This is not giving me a warm feeling about our testing practices.
>
> The checkpointer slit-up was not justified as a performance
> optimisation so much as a re-factoring effort that might have some
> concomitant performance benefits.
Agreed, but it means that we need to re-run the tests that were done to
make sure the extra fsync-request traffic is not causing a performance
regression,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-10/msg01321.php .
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
view thread (21+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <50066620.7090501@enterprisedb.com>
Permalink: ../50066620.7090501@enterprisedb.com/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/50066620.7090501@enterprisedb.com
copy link · copy postgr.es
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: heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, peter@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, 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: <50066620.7090501@enterprisedb.com>
* 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