On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 20.09.2011 10:48, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Fujii Masao<masao.fujii@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Simon Riggs<simon@2ndquadrant.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This patch splits bgwriter into 2 processes: checkpointer and
>>>> bgwriter, seeking to avoid contentious changes. Additional changes are
>>>> expected in this release to build upon these changes for both new
>>>> processes, though this patch stands on its own as both a performance
>>>> vehicle and in some ways a refcatoring to simplify the code.
>>>
>>> I like this idea to simplify the code. How much performance gain can we
>>> expect by this patch?
>>
>> On heavily I/O bound systems, this is likely to make a noticeable
>> difference, since bgwriter reduces I/O in user processes.
>
> Hmm. If the system is I/O bound, it doesn't matter which process performs
> the I/O. It's still the same amount of I/O in total, and in an I/O bound
> system, that's what determines the overall throughput.
That's true, but not relevant.
The bgwriter avoids I/O, if it is operating correctly. This patch
ensures it continues to operate even during heavy checkpoints. So it
helps avoid extra I/O during a period of very high I/O activity.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services