Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation
От | Amit kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C383BEAFFB1@szxeml509-mbs обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:59 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: > On 28 December 2012 10:21, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > I was also worried about the high variance in the results. Those > averages look rather meaningless. Which would be okay, I think, because > it'd mean that performance-wise the patch is a wash, For larger tuple sizes (>1000 && < 1800), the performance gain will be good. Please refer performance results by me and Kyotaro-san in below links: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C383BEAAE32@szxeml509-mbx http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20121228.170748.90887322.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp In fact, I believe for all tuples with length between 200 to 1800 bytes and changed values around 15~20%, there will be bothperformance gain as well as WAL reduction. The reason for keeping the logic same for smaller tuples (<=128 bytes) also same, that there is no much performance differencebut still WAL reduction gain is visible. > but it is still achieving a lower WAL volume, which is good. With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: