On Wednesday 16 December 2009 20:07:07 Gurjeet Singh wrote: > 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. I doubt that it will be faster than a tmpfs - the additional context switches et al probably will hurt already. If you constrain the checkpoint_segments to something sensible it shouldnt use too much memory.
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers