Thanks for running this!

On 2017-08-15 03:27:00 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Granted - this chart does not show latency, so it's not a complete
> picture.

That'd be quite useful to see here, too.

> Also, if you care about raw OLTP performance you're probably already running
> on flash, where this does not seem to be an issue. It's also not an issue if
> you have RAID controller with write cache, which can absorb those writes.
> And of course, those machines have reasonable dirty_background_bytes values
> (like 64MB or less).

The problem is that dirty_background_bytes = 64MB is *not* actually a
generally reasonable config, because it makes temp table, disk sort, etc
operations flush way too aggressively.

> b) The "flushing enabled" case seems to be much more sensitive to WAL
> segment size increases. It seems the throughput drops a bit (by 10-20%), for
> some segment sizes, and then recovers. The behavior seems to be smooth (not
> just a sudden drop for one segment size) but the value varies depending on
> the scale, test type (tpc-b /simple-update).

That's interesting.  I presume you've not tested with separate data /
xlog disks?


Andres Freund

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to