Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, amit.kapila@huawei.com, hlinnakangas@vmware.com, noah@leadboat.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2013-01-11T14:29:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs wrote: > On 28 December 2012 10:21, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > * There is a fixed 75% heuristic in the patch. > > I'm concerned that we're doing extra work while holding the buffer > locked, which will exacerbate any block contention that exists. > > We have a list of the columns that the UPDATE is touching since we use > that to check column permissions for the UPDATE. Which means we should > be able to use that list to check only the columns actually changing > in this UPDATE statement. But that doesn't include columns changed by triggers, AFAIR, so you could only use that if there weren't any triggers. 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, but it is still achieving a lower WAL volume, which is good. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services