From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
Date: | 2014-01-28 03:39:25 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa-A0VBfcciQpFr302WzMijRH1Bc9tdPpGUF0jijkEwOQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think that's a good thing to try. Can you code it up?
>
> I have tried to improve algorithm in another way so that we can get
> benefit of same chunks during find match (something similar to lz).
> The main change is to consider chunks at fixed boundary (4 byte)
> and after finding match, try to find if there is a longer match than
> current chunk. While finding longer match, it still takes care that
> next bigger match should be at chunk boundary. I am not
> completely sure about the chunk boundary may be 8 or 16 can give
> better results.
>
> I think now we can once run with this patch on high end m/c.
Here are the results I got on the community PPC64 box.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pgrb-v5 test.ods | application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet | 12.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2014-01-28 03:41:32 | Re: PoC: Partial sort |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-01-28 03:36:19 | Re: [bug fix] pg_ctl always uses the same event source |