From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Logical to physical page mapping |
Date: | 2012-10-29 03:39:11 |
Message-ID: | 508DFA5F.2000702@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/28/2012 10:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 28 October 2012 22:35, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>> The amount of WAL generated with full_page_writes=on is quite substantial.
>> For pgbench for example the ratio 20:1. Meaning with full_page_writes you
>> write 20x the amount you do without.
>
> Sure, but as always, pgbench pessimises everything by having writes
> follow a uniform distribution, which is completely unrepresentative of
> the natural world. This will literally maximise the number of pristine
> full page images that need to be included. The actual frequency of
> checkpoints is a crucial factor here too, and you didn't mention
> anything about that.
Higher buffer cache hit rates certainly reduce that ratio.
Well, I guess it was just one of those random thoughts that can't work
in the end or aren't worth the work anyway.
Jan
--
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither
liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Satoshi Nagayasu | 2012-10-29 03:58:01 | Re: New statistics for WAL buffer dirty writes |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-10-29 02:50:27 | Re: Logical to physical page mapping |