Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>
From: Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, "hlinnakangas@vmware.com" <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, "noah@leadboat.com" <noah@leadboat.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-01-11T17:30:16Z
Lists: 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 both performance 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 difference but still WAL reduction gain is visible. > but it is still achieving a lower WAL volume, which is good. With Regards, Amit Kapila.