On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:16 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
IIRC, pg_bench is *extremely* write-heavy. There's probably not that many
systems that operate that way. I suspect that most OLTP systems read more
than they write, and some
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
IIRC, pg_bench is *extremely* write-heavy. There's probably not that many
systems that operate that way. I suspect that most OLTP systems read more
than they write, and some probably have as much as a 10-1 ratio.
IMHO the
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
So benchmarking write-heavy workloads and separately benchmarking
read-only workloads is more representative.
Absolutely. High write activity applications are much more difficult
to optimize with simple tricks like
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Somewhat depressingly,
virtually all of the interesting activity still centers around the
same three locks that were problematic back then, which means that -
although overall performance has improved quite a bit - we've not
really delivered any
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Somewhat depressingly,
virtually all of the interesting activity still centers around the
same three locks that were problematic back then, which means that -
although overall
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Five-minute pgbench run, scale factor 100,
permanent tables, my usual config settings. Somewhat depressingly,
virtually all of the interesting
On 07.01.2012 09:58, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Here's the patch,
*sigh*, and here's the forgotten attachment.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lwlock.c b/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lwlock.c
index 079eb29..c38a884 100644
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Five-minute pgbench run, scale factor 100,
permanent tables, my usual config settings. Somewhat depressingly,
virtually all of the interesting activity still centers around the
same three locks
We've seen clear
2012/01/07 16:58, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 07.01.2012 00:24, Robert Haas wrote:
It's been a while since I did any testing with LWLOCK_STATS defined,
so I thought it might be about time to do that again and see how
things look. Here's how they looked back in July:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a little patch that's similar to
LWLOCK_STATS, but it prints out % of wallclock time that is spent
acquiring, releasing, or waiting for a lock. I find that more useful
than the counters.
I would
On 07.01.2012 19:18, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a little patch that's similar to
LWLOCK_STATS, but it prints out % of wallclock time that is spent
acquiring, releasing, or waiting for a lock. I find that more
It's been a while since I did any testing with LWLOCK_STATS defined,
so I thought it might be about time to do that again and see how
things look. Here's how they looked back in July:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg01373.php
Here are the results from a test I ran today
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a while since I did any testing with LWLOCK_STATS defined,
so I thought it might be about time to do that again and see how
things look. Here's how they looked back in July:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a while since I did any testing with LWLOCK_STATS defined,
so I thought it might be about time to do that again and see how
things look.
On 07.01.2012 00:24, Robert Haas wrote:
It's been a while since I did any testing with LWLOCK_STATS defined,
so I thought it might be about time to do that again and see how
things look. Here's how they looked back in July:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg01373.php
15 matches
Mail list logo
