Horton

Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation

Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Hari Babu <haribabu.kommi@huawei.com>, Mike Blackwell <mike.blackwell@rrd.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: 2014-01-21T07:30:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> But even if that doesn't
> pan out, I think the fallback position should not be "OK, well, if we
> can't get decreased I/O for free then forget it" but rather "OK, if we
> can't get decreased I/O for free then let's get decreased I/O in
> exchange for increased CPU usage".

While I haven't been following the development of this patch, I will
note that on the face of it the latter seem like a trade-off I'd be
quite willing to make.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Commits

  1. Flush stderr and stdout in isolation tester.