Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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