| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2014-02-13 04:37:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpa3G_TUOHJhb7oujbVSFQuekJ7H0ajMKO2Vovfb8nagNw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Here one of the improvements which can be done is that after prefix-suffix
> match, instead of going byte-by-byte copy as per LZ format we can directly
> copy all the remaining part of tuple but I think that would require us to use
> some different format than LZ which is also not too difficult to do, but the
> question is do we really need such a change to handle the above kind of
> worst case.
Why use LZ at all? Why not *only* prefix/suffix?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-02-13 04:50:46 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2014-02-13 04:31:34 | Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange |