From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option |
Date: | 2007-02-28 15:57:03 |
Message-ID: | 45E5A64F.8070601@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> This proposed design is overcomplicated and a waste of space. I mean,
>> we reduce storage overhead using phantom command id and variable
>> varlena, but let's just fill it up again with unnecessary junk bytes.
>
> We reduced storage overhead using phantom command id by 8 bytes *per tuple*. I
> hardly think 8 bytes per page is much of a concern. You're already losing an
> average of 1/2 a tuple per page to rounding and that's a minimum of 16 bytes
> for the narrowest of tuples.
>
>>> That seems pretty unlikely. CRC checks are expensive cpu-wise, we're already
>>> suffering a copy due to our use of read/write the difference between
>>> read/write of 8192 bytes and readv/writev of 511b*16+1*6 is going to be
>>> non-zero but very small. Thousands of times quicker than the CRC.
>> Prove it.
>
> We've already seen wal CRC checking show up at the top of profiles.
yeah - on fast boxes (diskio wise) wal-crc checking is nearly always on
the very top of wal-intensive workloads.
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-02-28 16:03:47 | Re: Compilation errors |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-02-28 15:48:49 | Re: Compilation errors |