Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date
Msg-id 16217.1122063543@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Looks like the CRC calculation work isn't the issue.   I did test runs of
> no-CRC vs. regular DBT2 with different checkpoint timeouts, and didn't
> discern any statistical difference.   See attached spreadsheet chart (the
> two different runs are on two different machines).

Um, where are the test runs underlying this spreadsheet?  I don't have a
whole lot of confidence in looking at full-run average TPM numbers to
discern whether transient dropoffs in TPM are significant or not.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC