Re: Spread checkpoint sync
Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>
From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: "Greg Smith" <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, <cedric.villemain.debian@gmail.com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-02-07T18:38:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Add new buffers_backend_fsync field to pg_stat_bgwriter.
- 3134d8863e84 9.1.0 cited
Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > As a larger statement on this topic, I'm never very excited about > redesigning here starting from any point other than "saw a > bottleneck doing <x> on a production system". There's a long list > of such things already around waiting to be addressed, and I've > never seen any good evidence of work related to hint bits being on > it. Please correct me if you know of some--I suspect you do from > the way you're brining this up. There are occasional posts from those wondering why their read-only queries are so slow after a bulk load, and why they are doing heavy writes. (I remember when I posted about that, as a relative newbie, and I know I've seen others.) I think worst case is probably: - Bulk load data. - Analyze (but don't vacuum) the new data. - Start a workload with a lot of small, concurrent random reads. - Watch performance tank when the write cache gluts. This pattern is why we've adopted a pretty strict rule in our shop that we run VACUUM FREEZE ANALYZE between a bulk load and putting the database back into production. It's probably a bigger issue for those who can't do that. -Kevin