On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> On 09/25/2017 11:31 AM, Alvaro Hernandez wrote:
>
>>
>>
> Whether or not they are included in a managed environment is generally
>>> based on two things:
>>>
>>> 1. Safety (why RDS doesn't allow certain C extensions)
>>> 2. Commun
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 4/4/12 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Greg Stark writes:
>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Why is this pgbench run accessing so much unhinted data that is > 1
million transactions old? Do you believe those number
> 9.2 + DW patch
> ---
> FPW off FPW on DW on/FPW off
> CK on CK on CK on
> one disk: 11078 10394 3296 [1G shared_buffers, 8G RAM]
> sep log disk: 13605 12015 3412
>
> one disk: 7731 66
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jignesh Shah wrote:
>> In the double write implementation, every checkpoint write is double
>> writed,
>
> Unless I'm quite thoroughly confused, which is possible, the double
>
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Jignesh Shah wrote:
>
>> When we use Doublewrite with checksums, we can safely disable
>> full_page_write causing a HUGE reduction to the WAL traffic
>> without loss of reliatbility due to a write fault since
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:00 AM, Jesper Krogh wrote:
> On 2011-12-22 09:42, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * David Fetter:
>>
>>> The issue is that double writes needs a checksum to work by itself,
>>> and page checksums more broadly work better when there are double
>>> writes, obviating the need to
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Jignesh Shah wrote:
>
> Okay I tried it out with sysbench read scaling test..
> Note I had tried that earlier on 9.0
> http://jkshah.blogspot.com/2010/11/postgresql-90-simple-select-scaling.html
>
> And on that test I found that doing that test
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> That's an improvement of about ~3.5x. According to the vmstat output,
>> when running without the patch, the CPU state was about 40% idle.
>> With the patch, it dropped down to around 6%.
>
> Wow! That's fantastic.
>
> Jignesh, are you in a
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> That's an improvement of about ~3.5x. According to the vmstat output,
>> when running without the patch, the CPU state was about 40% idle.
>> With the patch, it dropped down to around 6%.
>
> Wow! That's fantastic.
>
> Jignesh, are you in a
Actually cutting down my mail to something more readable..
Lets consider two transactions
BEGIN;
BEGIN;
DELETE FROM sbtest WHERE id=500815;
INSERT INTO sbtest
values(500815,0,'','aaffrreeyy');
DELETE FROM sbtest WHERE id=500815;
Hello All,
I am recently using sysbench with PostgreSQL 9.0 and 8.4.5 and doing
some tests on 8core systems with SSDs.
I seem to be hitting some problems with the read-write tests and
hoping to see if it is a possible concurrency bug or expected
behavior.
Using sysbench with 1M rows and 80+ t
Hello All,
I am using the latest 8.2 source that I compiled with Sun Studio 11 and
tested it on Solaris 10 11/06 against an app server. I find that the CPU
utilization was higher than I expected and started digging through it.
Aparently the top CPU usage comes from the following stack trace w
12 matches
Mail list logo
