| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Hari Babu <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
| Date: | 2014-01-21 07:30:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZT5zBodcHHJcqNd7r22BPh6AugW04-LUa=324qsBOQE2w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> But even if that doesn't
> pan out, I think the fallback position should not be "OK, well, if we
> can't get decreased I/O for free then forget it" but rather "OK, if we
> can't get decreased I/O for free then let's get decreased I/O in
> exchange for increased CPU usage".
While I haven't been following the development of this patch, I will
note that on the face of it the latter seem like a trade-off I'd be
quite willing to make.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2014-01-21 08:08:17 | Re: NOT Null constraint on foreign table not working |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-01-21 07:00:51 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |