Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V18 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fabien COELHO
Subject Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V18
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.10.1603110016270.18837@sto
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V18  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V18  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
[...]

>> If the default is in pages, maybe you could state it and afterwards
>> translate it in size.
>
> Hm, I think that's more complicated for users than it's worth.

As you wish. I liked the number of pages you used initially because it 
really gives a hint of how much random IOs are avoided when they are 
contiguous, and I do not have the same just intuition with sizes. Also it 
is related to the io queue length manage by the OS.

>> The text could say something about sequential writes performance because
>> pages are sorted.., but that it is lost for large bases and/or short
>> checkpoints ?
>
> I think that's an implementation detail.

As you wish. I thought that understanding the underlying performance model 
with sequential writes written in chunks is important for the admin, and 
as this guc would have an impact on performance it should be hinted about, 
including the limits of its effect where large bases will converge to 
random io performance. But maybe that is not the right place.

-- 
Fabien



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity.
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V18