Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date
Msg-id 20120222235100.GB10850@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:17:53PM +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I decided that it would be worth benchmarking this patch.
> Specifically, I tested:
> 
> master, as a basis of comparison
> 
> checksum16_with_wallogged_hint_bits.v10.patch, page_checksums = 'on'
> 
> checksum16_with_wallogged_hint_bits.v10.patch, page_checksums = 'off'
> 
> This test was performed using pgbench-tools. At different client
> counts and scaling factors "1,10,100", performance of an update.sql
> workload was tested.

Looks interesting.  Could you get some error bars around the numbers
plotted, and possibly some scaling factors between 10 and 100?

For the former, I'm looking for whether those changes are within
ordinary variation, and in the latter, some better idea of what the
curve looks like.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade --logfile option documentation
Next
From: Affan Salman
Date:
Subject: Commit a445cb92 not tested without OpenSSL support?