From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
Date: | 2016-12-20 13:19:43 |
Message-ID: | 20161220131943.zfuz6wriqqensqet@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-12-20 08:10:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> We could use the GUC assign hook to compute a mask and a shift, so
> that this could be written as (CurrPos & mask_variable) == 0. That
> would avoid the division instruction, though not the memory access.
I suspect that'd be fine.
> I hope this is all in the noise, though.
Could very well be.
> I know this is code is hot but I think it'll be hard to construct a
> test case where the bottleneck is anything other than the speed at
> which the disk can absorb bytes.
I don't think that's really true. Heikki's WAL changes made a *BIG*
difference. And pretty small changes in xlog.c can make noticeable
throughput differences both in single and multi-threaded
workloads. E.g. witnessed by the fact that the crc computation used to
be a major bottleneck (and the crc32c instruction still shows up
noticeably in profiles). SSDs have become fast enough that it's
increasingly hard to saturate them.
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-12-20 13:21:23 | Re: Time to drop old-style (V0) functions? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-20 13:15:07 | Re: Time to drop old-style (V0) functions? |