From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)mail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: data-checksums |
Date: | 2018-01-09 20:37:16 |
Message-ID: | 163ee8df-cae2-484e-5791-c74994d33403@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 01/09/2018 12:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-01-09 20:04:04 +0100, Rakesh Kumar wrote:
>>>> I also would like to believe that the hit is small, but when PG
>>>> official document writes "noticeable performance penalty", it becomes
>>>> difficult to convince management that the hit is small :-)
>>> Why believe, when you can measure?
>> yup doing that. But I still feel that PG documentation should stay
>> away from such scare mongering. Or did the lawyers write that :)
> So we should rather lie about it having a potential for performance
> impact? Who'd be helped by that?
It isn't a lie, it depends on the workload and hardware. Adjusting the
documentation to say something like the following probably isn't a bad idea:
The use of the data checksum feature may incur a performance penalty.
However, this does depend on your particular workload and provisioned
hardware. It is wise to test the feature based on your specific
requirements.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2018-01-09 20:47:17 | Sv: Re: data-checksums |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-01-09 20:22:59 | Re: data-checksums |