| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, "hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com" <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [WIP] Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
| Date: | 2012-10-24 19:17:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaYdojYbCSOQ9Uyk-dyNdFEnNEzfKT71WX-jN3TWE8kCg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> -Patch- -tps(at)-c1- -tps(at)-c2- -tps(at)-c8- -WAL(at)-c8-
> HEAD,-F80 816 1644 6528 1821 MiB
> xlogscale,-F80 824 1643 6551 1826 MiB
> xlogscale+lz,-F80 717 1466 5924 1137 MiB
> xlogscale+lz,-F100 753 1508 5948 1548 MiB
Ouch. I've been pretty excited by this patch, but I don't think we
want to take an "optimization" that produces a double-digit hit at 1
client and doesn't gain even at 8 clients. I'm surprised this is
costing that much, though. It doesn't seem like it should.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2012-10-24 20:20:38 | autovacuum truncate exclusive lock round two |
| Previous Message | Brar Piening | 2012-10-24 19:08:43 | Re: Visual Studio 2012 RC |