Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
Cc: 'Mike Blackwell' <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com>, 'Hari Babu' <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation
Date: 2013-07-18 22:40:48
Message-ID: 51E86EF0.2080501@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/9/13 12:09 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think the first thing to verify is whether the results posted can be validated in some other environment setup by another person.
> The testcase used is posted at below link:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51366323.8070606@vmware.com

That seems easy enough to do here, Heikki's test script is excellent.
The latest patch Hari posted on July 2 has one hunk that doesn't apply
anymore now. Inside src/backend/utils/adt/pg_lzcompress.c the patch
tries to change this code:

- if (hent)
+ if (hentno != INVALID_ENTRY)

But that line looks like this now:

if (hent != INVALID_ENTRY_PTR)

Definitions of those:

#define INVALID_ENTRY 0
#define INVALID_ENTRY_PTR (&hist_entries[INVALID_ENTRY])

I'm not sure if different error handling may be needed here now due the
commit that changed this, or if the patch wasn't referring to the right
type of error originally.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2013-07-18 22:42:38 Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2013-07-18 22:33:15 Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)