From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2014-02-06 03:43:50 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LwOi03NTUuhxy_0CEX5KkFdVxp2th72=iFuX11BKZgBw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 04:48 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> I have done one test where there is a large suffix match, but
>> not large enough that it can compress more than 75% of string,
>> the CPU overhead with wal-update-prefix-suffix-encode-1.patch is
>> not much, but there is no I/O reduction as well.
>
>
> Hmm, it's supposed to compress if you save at least 25%, not 75%. Apparently
> I got that backwards in the patch...
So If I understand the code correctly, the new check should be
if (prefixlen + suffixlen < (slen * need_rate) / 100)
return false;
rather than
if (slen - prefixlen - suffixlen > (slen * need_rate) / 100)
return false;
Please confirm, else any validation for this might not be useful?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-02-06 03:59:41 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-02-06 03:37:20 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |