Re: increasing the default WAL segment size

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?