Re: [PERFORM] Issue for partitioning with extra check constriants

2010-10-04 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus writes: >> And your point is? The design center for the current setup is maybe 5 >> or 10 partitions. We didn't intend it to be used for more partitions >> than you might have spindles to spread the data across. > Where did that come from? It certainly wasn't anywhere when the feat

Re: [PERFORM] How does PG know if data is in memory?

2010-10-04 Thread Jeremy Harris
On 10/04/2010 04:22 AM, Greg Smith wrote: I had a brain-storming session on this subject with a few of the hackers in the community in this area a while back I haven't had a chance to do something with yet (it exists only as a pile of scribbled notes so far). There's a couple of ways to collect

Re: [PERFORM] How does PG know if data is in memory?

2010-10-04 Thread Cédric Villemain
2010/10/4 Greg Smith : > Craig Ringer wrote: >> >> If some kind of cache awareness was to be added, I'd be interested in >> seeing a "hotness" measure that tracked how heavily a given relation/index >> has been accessed and how much has been read from it recently. A sort of >> age-scaled blocks-per

Re: [PERFORM] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance

2010-10-04 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Hakan Kocaman wrote: > Hi, > for whom it may concern: > http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/mosbench/ > They tested with 8.3.9, i wonder what results 9.0 would give. > Best regards and keep up the good work They mention that these tests were run on the older 8xxx series opte

Re: [PERFORM] [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance

2010-10-04 Thread Josh Berkus
Dan, (btw, OpenSQL Confererence is going to be at MIT in 2 weeks. Think anyone from the MOSBENCH team could attend? http://www.opensqlcamp.org/Main_Page) > The big takeaway for -hackers, I think, is that lock manager > performance is going to be an issue for large multicore systems, and > the un

Re: [PERFORM] Issue for partitioning with extra check constriants

2010-10-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:34 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > And your point is? The design center for the current setup is maybe 5 > > or 10 partitions. We didn't intend it to be used for more partitions > > than you might have spindles to spread the data across. > > Where did that come from? Yea

Re: [PERFORM] Issue for partitioning with extra check constriants

2010-10-04 Thread Josh Berkus
> And your point is? The design center for the current setup is maybe 5 > or 10 partitions. We didn't intend it to be used for more partitions > than you might have spindles to spread the data across. Where did that come from? It certainly wasn't anywhere when the feature was introduced. Simo

[PERFORM] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance

2010-10-04 Thread Hakan Kocaman
Hi, for whom it may concern: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/mosbench/ They tested with 8.3.9, i wonder what results 9.0 would give. Best regards and keep up the good work Hakan