From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
Date: | 2005-06-30 16:29:40 |
Message-ID: | 200506300929.40793.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> Database pages. The current theory is that we can completely
> reconstruct from WAL data every page that's been modified since the
> last checkpoint. So the first write of any page after a checkpoint
> dumps a full image of the page into WAL; subsequent writes only write
> differences.
What I'm confused about is that this shouldn't be anything new for 8.1. Yet
8.1 has *worse* performance on the STP machines than 8.0 does, and it's
pretty much entirely due to this check.
> This is nice and secure ... at least when you are using hardware that
> guarantees write ordering ... otherwise it's probably mostly useless
> overhead. Still, I'd not like to abandon the contract that if the disk
> does what it is supposed to do then we will do what we are supposed to.
Given the huge performance difference (30%), I think we have to give an option
to turn it off. So DBAs whose machines are in danger of being shut off a lot
can have it on an the more performance-sensitive can turn it off.
One thing I am confused about, though: if the whole pages are in the database,
why do we need a full copy in WAL instead of just the diffs?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Al_Dev | 2005-06-30 16:55:21 | Language to use with SQL database - Number ONE computer language - Language Shootout |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2005-06-30 16:10:43 | WAL oddities (8.0.3) |