Re: Logging checkpoints and other slowdown causes - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: Logging checkpoints and other slowdown causes
Date
Msg-id Pine.GSO.4.64.0705282200190.28443@westnet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Logging checkpoints and other slowdown causes  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Logging checkpoints and other slowdown causes
List pgsql-patches
I'll take another stab at refining this can of worms I opened.  The one
thing I noticed on a quick review is that it's almost possible to skip all
the calls to gettimeofday if log_checkpoints is off now.  I'd like to make
that a specific goal, because that will make me feel better that adding
this code has almost no performance impact relative to now unless you turn
the feature on.

I agree with Simon that tracking create/drop separately is unnecessary.
As for why all the timing info is in ms, given the scale of the numbers
typically encountered I found it easier to work with.  I originally wanted
resolution down to 0.1ms if the underlying OS supports it, which means 4
figures to the right of the decimal point if the unit was switched to
seconds.  Quite often the times reported are less than 100ms, so you'll
normally be dealing with fractional part of a second.  If we take Heikki's
example:

LOG:  checkpoint complete; buffers written=3.1 MB (9.6%) write=96.8 ms
sync=32.0 ms

And switch it to seconds:

LOG:  checkpoint complete; buffers written=3.1 MB (9.6%) write=0.0968 ms
sync=0.0320 ms

I don't find that as easy to work with.  The only way a timing in seconds
would look OK is if the resolution of the whole thing is reduced to ms,
which then makes 3 decimal points--easy to read as ms instead.  Having
stared at a fair amount of this data now, that's probably fine; I'll
collect up some more data on it from a fast server this week to confirm
whether's it's worthless precision or worth capturing.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Seq scans status update
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support