Re: Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS

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.
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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