Greg Smith wrote:
As you can see, I achieved the goal of almost never having a backend write its own buffer, so yeah for that. That's the only good thing I can say about it though. The TPS results take a moderate dive, and there's about 10% more buffer allocations. The big and obvious issues is that I'm writing almost 75% more buffers this way--way worse even than the 10% extra overhead Heikki was seeing. But since I've going out of my way to find a worse-case for this code, I consider mission accomplished there.

There's something wrong with that. The number of buffer allocations shouldn't depend on the bgwriter strategy at all.

--
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to