Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Unpatched
>>> -------------------
>>> testname | wal_generated |
>>> duration
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+------------------
>>> one short and one long field, no change | 1054923224 | 33.101135969162
>>>
>>> After pgrb_delta_encoding_v4
>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> testname | wal_generated |
>>> duration
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+------------------
>>> one short and one long field, no change | 877859144 | 30.6749138832092
>>>
>>>
>>> Temporary Changes
>>> (Revert Max Chunksize = 4 and logic of finding longer match)
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> testname | wal_generated |
>>> duration
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+------------------
>>> one short and one long field, no change | 677337304 | 25.4048750400543
>>
>> Sure, but watch me not care.
>>
>> If we're interested in taking advantage of the internal
>> compressibility of tuples, we can do a lot better than this patch. We
>> can compress the old tuple and the new tuple. We can compress
>> full-page images. We can compress inserted tuples. But that's not
>> the point of this patch.
>>
>> The point of *this* patch is to exploit the fact that the old and new
>> tuples are likely to be very similar, NOT to squeeze out every ounce
>> of compression from other sources.
>
> Okay, got your point.
> Another minor thing is that in latest patch which I have sent yesterday,
> I have modified it such that while formation of chunks if there is a data
> at end of string which doesn't have special pattern and is less than max
> chunk size, we also consider that as a chunk. The reason of doing this
> was that let us say if we have 104 bytes string which contains no special
> bit pattern, then it will just have one 64 byte chunk and will leave the
> remaining bytes, which might miss the chance of doing compression for
> that data.

Yeah, that sounds right.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company