Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fabien COELHO
Subject Re: checkpointer continuous flushing
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.10.1506030754080.20439@sto
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: checkpointer continuous flushing  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> I agree with you that if we have to add a sort phase, there is additional
> work and that work could be significant depending on the design we
> choose, however without that, this patch can have impact on many kind
> of workloads, even in your mail in one of the tests
> ("pgbench -M prepared -N -T 100 -j 2 -c 4 -P 1" over 32 runs (4 clients))
> it has shown 20% degradation which is quite significant and test also
> seems to be representative of the workload which many users in real-world
> will use.

Yes, I do agree with the 4 clients, but I doubt that many user run their 
application at maximum available throughput all the time (like always 
driving foot to the floor). So for me throttled runs are more 
representative of real life.

> Now one can say that for such workloads turn the new knob to off, but
> in reality it could be difficult to predict if the load is always moderate.

Hmmm. The switch says "I prefer stable (say latency bounded) performance", 
if you run a web site probably you should want that.

Anyway, I'll look at sorting when I have some time.

-- 
Fabien.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: checkpointer continuous flushing
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: checkpointer continuous flushing