Re: WAL Bypass for indexes

On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 09:40 -0700, Martin Scholes wrote:
> > I will run multiple tests and post the actual numbers.
> 
> I did run more extensive tests and did not bother writing down the
> numbers, and here's why: the unmodified Pg ran pgbench with a whopping
> average of 6.3% time in IO wait.
>  
> If I was able to totally eliminate that time (which is impossible),
> then the best we could hope for is a 7% increase in performance by
> skipping WAL of indexes.

The WAL becomes more of a hotspot as you scale up numbers of CPUs. I
guess this idea doesn't make much difference for smaller systems.

I think your idea still has merit, Martin. I'll do some tests also.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs