From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com, hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com, noah(at)leadboat(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
Date: | 2013-01-11 14:29:49 |
Message-ID: | 20130111142949.GA4208@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 28 December 2012 10:21, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-11 14:34:33 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-01-11 14:24:38 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |