| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
| Date: | 2014-02-04 19:09:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20140204190957.GA32259@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 01:28:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Meanwhile, in friendlier cases, like "one short and one long field, no
> change", we're seeing big improvements. That particular case shows a
> speedup of 21% and a WAL reduction of 36%. That's a pretty big deal,
> and I think not unrepresentative of many real-world workloads. Some
> might well do better, having either more or longer unchanged fields.
> Assuming that the logic isn't buggy, a point in need of further study,
> I'm starting to feel like we want to have this. And I might even be
> tempted to remove the table-level off switch.
Does this feature relate to compression of WAL page images at all?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-02-04 19:11:18 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-04 18:53:36 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |