| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |
| Date: | 2017-03-21 14:12:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYSjYPp2RGBgDHFJzRQzB_AheA4E8UvJboGkx8mcNc=6w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think that very wide columns and highly indexed tables are not
>> particularly unrealistic, nor do I think updating all the rows is
>> particularly unrealistic. Sure, it's not everything, but it's
>> something. Now, I would agree that all of that PLUS unlogged tables
>> with fsync=off is not too realistic. What kind of regression would we
>> observe if we eliminated those last two variables?
>
> Sure, we can try that. I think we need to try it with
> synchronous_commit = off, otherwise, WAL writes completely overshadows
> everything.
synchronous_commit = off is a much more realistic scenario than fsync = off.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-03-21 14:14:07 | Re: Logical decoding on standby |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-03-21 14:01:07 | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |