| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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: | 2014-02-05 18:57:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQnmEpiACpD1qX+HO0CzLVCkbcAdTdjS9iikbmJhhYKtw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think there's zero overlap. They're completely complimentary features.
>> It's not like normal WAL records have an irrelevant volume.
>
>
> Correct. Compressing a full-page image happens on the first update after a
> checkpoint, and the diff between old and new tuple is not used in that case.
Uh, I really just meant that one thing that might overlap is
considerations around the choice of compression algorithm. I think
that there was some useful discussion of that on the other thread as
well.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-02-05 19:03:26 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-02-05 18:56:54 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |