2009/12/15 Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> > Jaime Casanova wrote: > >> So in this extreme case avg tps is just 6 transactions better >> >> > Great job trying to find the spot where the code worked better. I'm not so > sure I trust pgbench results where the TPS was so low though. Which leads > us right back to exactly how Jeff measured his original results. > > As I said already, I think we need more insight into Jeff's performance > report, a way to replicate that test, to look a bit at the latency as > reported by the updated LWLock patch that Pierre submitted. Tweaking your > test to give more useful results is a nice second opinion on top of that. > But we're out of time for now, so this patch is getting returned with > feedback. I encourage Jeff to resubmit the same patch or a better one with > a little more data on performance measurements to our final 8.5 CommitFest > in hopes we can confirm this an improvement worth committing. > > > Last week I worked on a FUSE based filesystem, which I call BlackholeFS. Its similar to /dev/null, but for directories. Basically it simply returns success for all the writes, but doesn't do any writes on the files under it.
Would moving the pg_xlog/ (and possibly table data too) to such a filesystem exercise this patch better? Best regards, -- Lets call it Postgres EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com gurjeet[.sin...@enterprisedb.com singh.gurj...@{ gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com Twitter: singh_gurjeet Skype: singh_gurjeet Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
