Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3
От
Alvaro Herrera
Тема
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3
Дата
Msg-id
20070723175431.GA4213@alvh.no-ip.org
Ответ на
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 (Jim Nasby)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
autovacuum default parameters (was Re: 8.2 is 30% better in
pgbench than 8.3) Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Re: autovacuum default parameters (was Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3) ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Re: autovacuum default parameters (was Re: 8.2 is 30% better
in pgbench than 8.3) "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Re: autovacuum default parameters Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Re: autovacuum default parameters Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Jim Nasby wrote: > On Jul 22, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Tom, >>> Note to all: we ***HAVE TO*** settle on some reasonable default >>> vacuum_cost_delay settings before we can ship 8.3. With no cost delay >>> and two or three workers active, 8.3's autovac does indeed send >>> performance into the tank. >> >> I've been using 20ms for most of my setups. That's aimed at reducing >> autovac to almost no impact at all, but taking a long time. Maybe 10ms? > > I've found 20ms to be a pretty good number for run-of-the-mill IO > capability, and 10ms to be good for a good RAID setup (RAID10, 8+ drives, > BBU). > > For a default setting, I think it'd be better to lean towards 20ms. OK, 20ms it is then. Here is a patch. I am taking the liberty to also lower the vacuum and analyze threshold default values to 50, per previous discussion. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления