From: | Hideyuki Kawashima <kawasima(at)cs(dot)tsukuba(dot)ac(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, gene(at)sotech(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS |
Date: | 2007-02-13 01:12:59 |
Message-ID: | 45D1109B.1070304@cs.tsukuba.ac.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce,
Thanks for your comments, and let me answer to your question.
Sigres is *not* significantly faster than just creating a file system on
the permanent memory and putting xlog on there.
Sigres is slightly faster than the case because each backend does not
call XLogWrite while bgWriter does.
-- Hideyuki
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Gene <genekhart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>> ... just my two cents. on a side note, would putting the wal on a
>>> tmpfs partition give you something similar?
>>>
>> Indeed, I'm wondering why one needs to hack the Postgres core to throw
>> away data integrity guarantees; there are plenty of ways to do that
>> already :-(. Hideyuki-san has not explained exactly what integrity
>> assumptions he wants to make or not make. I'm surely willing to listen
>> to supporting a different set of assumptions than we currently use, but
>> I'd like to see a clear explanation of what assumptions are being made
>> and why they represent a useful case.
>>
>
> I am unsure why Sigres is significantly faster than just creating a file
> system on the permanent memory and putting xlog on there.
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-13 01:15:49 | Re: Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2007-02-13 01:08:31 | Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto |