Re: data on devel code perf dip - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: data on devel code perf dip
Date
Msg-id 200508120211.j7C2Bgb01740@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: data on devel code perf dip  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: data on devel code perf dip  (Mark Wong <markw@osdl.org>)
Re: data on devel code perf dip  (Mary Edie Meredith <maryedie@osdl.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> O_DIRECT is only being used for WAL page writes (or I sure hope so
> >> anyway), so shared_buffers should be irrelevant.
> 
> > Uh, O_DIRECT really just enables when open_sync is used, and I assume
> > that is not used for writing dirty buffers during a checkpoint.
> 
> I double-checked that O_DIRECT is really just used for WAL, and only
> when the sync mode is open_sync or open_datasync.  So it seems
> impossible that it affected a run with mode fdatasync.  What seems the
> best theory at the moment is that the grouped-WAL-write part of the
> patch doesn't work so well as we thought.

Yes, that's my only guess.  Let us know if you want the patch to test,
rather than pulling CVS before and after the patch was applied.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: data on devel code perf dip
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Why do index access methods use LP_DELETE?