| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Date: | 2015-12-16 18:11:10 |
| Message-ID: | 5671A93E.1000900@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I'm planning to do some thorough benchmarking of the patches proposed in
this thread, on various types of hardware (10k SAS drives and SSDs). But
is that actually needed? I see Andres did some testing, as he posted
summary of the results on 11/12, but I don't see any actual results or
even info about what benchmarks were done (pgbench?).
If yes, do we only want to compare 0001-ckpt-14-andres.patch against
master, or do we need to test one of the previous Fabien's patches?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-12-16 18:11:32 | Re: use_remote_estimate usage for join pushdown in postgres_fdw |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-12-16 18:06:05 | Re: fix for readline terminal size problems when window is resized with open pager |