Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(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: 2014-02-11 16:37:41
Message-ID: 20140211163741.GD2289@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:57:57AM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I think there's zero overlap. They're completely complimentary features.
> >> It's not like normal WAL records have an irrelevant volume.
> >
> >
> > Correct. Compressing a full-page image happens on the first update after a
> > checkpoint, and the diff between old and new tuple is not used in that case.
>
> Uh, I really just meant that one thing that might overlap is
> considerations around the choice of compression algorithm. I think
> that there was some useful discussion of that on the other thread as
> well.

Yes, that was my point. I though the compression of full-page images
was a huge win and that compression was pretty straight-forward, except
for the compression algorithm. If the compression algorithm issue is
resolved, can we move move forward with the full-page compression patch?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-02-11 17:12:13 Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-02-11 16:33:45 Re: Review: tests for client programs