Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Kapila
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Дата
Msg-id CAA4eK1Ksn+yCfDUYeC8xx3aB8XyuTAyXgepZjKwvfqYFDujDCA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> That being said, I'm ready to do some benchmarking on this, so that we have
> at least some numbers to argue about. Can we agree on a set of workloads
> that we want to benchmark in the first round?
>

I think if we can get data for pgbench read-write workload when data
doesn't fit in shared buffers but fit in RAM, that can give us some
indication.  We can try by varying the ratio of shared buffers w.r.t
data.  This should exercise the checksum code both when buffers are
evicted and at next read.  I think it also makes sense to check the
WAL data size for each of those runs.


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Kuntal Ghosh
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support
Следующее
От: Tomas Vondra
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?