Hard to argue with that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Mayer wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Most likely, you do not want to do this. You *can* do it, but you are > > quite likely to suffer from priority inversion > > Papers I've read suggest that the benefits of priorities > vastly outweigh the penalties of priority inversion for > virtually all workloads on most all RDBMs's including > PostgreSQL. > > This CMU paper in particular tested PostgreSQL (and DB2) > on TPC-C and TPC-W workloads and found that indirectly > influencing I/O scheduling through CPU priorities > is a big win for postgresql. > > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bianca/icde04.pdf > > "For TPC-C running on PostgreSQL, > the simplest CPU scheduling policy (CPU-Prio) provides > a factor of 2 improvement for high-priority transactions, > while adding priority inheritance (CPU-Prio-Inherit) > provides a factor of 6 improvement while hardly > penalizing low-priority transactions." > > > Have you heard of any workload on any RDBMS where priority inversion > causes more harm than benefit? > > Ron Mayer > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
