From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: zheap: a new storage format for PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2018-12-06 05:42:53 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+Lop8aXu7zNXWTQKxhZBnnAabLS9S1S+LY_XNAp5oJ6A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:03 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> čt 6. 12. 2018 v 5:02 odesílatel Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> napsal:
>>
>> COPY command seems to have improved very slightly with zheap in both with size of wal and execution time. I also did some tests with insert statement where I could see some regression in zheap when compared to heap with respect to execution time. With further more investigation I will reply here.
>>
>
> 20% of size reduction looks like effect of fill factor.
>
I think it is because of smaller zheap tuple sizes. Mithun can tell
more about setup whether he has used different fillfactor or anything
else which could lead to such a big difference.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-12-06 05:43:35 | Re: Use durable_unlink for .ready and .done files for WAL segment removal |
Previous Message | Nagaura, Ryohei | 2018-12-06 05:19:57 | RE: Timeout parameters |