Re: WAL Bypass for indexes

"Martin Scholes" <marty(at)iicolo(dot)com> writes:
> Ok Tom, I stand corrected.

> I downloaded the latest snapshot and both scenarios (normal and WAL bypass =
> for indexes) produced between 185 and 230 tps on my machine.

> The lesson here is that whatever WAL magic has been performed on the latest =
> release gives over 100% speedup, and the speedup is so good that skipping =
> WAL for indexes does basically nothing.

[ scratches head ... ] Actually, I'd have expected that you could still
measure a difference. I thought it might be reduced to the point where
we arguably shouldn't spend major effort on eliminating it. But no
difference at all really does not compute. Could you recheck your test
conditions? You still haven't been very clear what they are.

regards, tom lane