On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> a quick-and-dirty attempt to limit the amount of I/O caused by hint >> bits. I'm still very interested in knowing what people think about >> that. > > I found the elimination of the response-time spike promising. I > don't think I've seen enough data yet to feel comfortable endorsing > it, though. I guess the question in my head is: how much of the > lingering performance hit was due to having to go to clog and how > much was due to competition with the deferred writes? If much of it > is due to repeated recalculation of visibility based on clog info, I > think there would need to be some way to limit how many times that > happened before the hint bits were saved.
I think you may be confused about what the patch does - currently, pages with hint bit changes are considered dirty, period. Therefore, they are written whenever any other dirty page would be written: by the background writer cleaning scan, at checkpoints, and when a backend must write a dirty buffer before reallocating it to hold a different page. The patch keeps the first of these and changes the second two: pages with only hint bit changes are dirty for purposes of the background writer, but are considered clean for checkpoint purposes and buffer recycling. IOW, I'm not adding any new mechanism for these pages to get written. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
