From: | Moises Lima dos Anjos <mozart08(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Hi i like to unscribe me, sorry for the incovenient. |
Date: | 2018-01-09 19:30:04 |
Message-ID: | CANc+qiS3u_w33jJowiMebyZOD2XnD23vV4PH-65rG+=5hmE65Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Em ter, 9 de jan de 2018 às 16:20, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
escreveu:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)mail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > That said, imv anyway, the performance hit is small and having checksums
>> > is well worth it.
>>
>> I also would like to believe that the hit is small, but when PG official
>> document writes "noticeable performance penalty", it becomes difficult to
>> convince management that the hit is small :-)
>>
>>
> Why ask us questions if you won't believe our answers?
>
> Noticeable means it probably isn't important for most real-world cases,
> but if you work at it you can probably detect it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | George Neuner | 2018-01-09 20:02:33 | Re: data-checksums |
Previous Message | Agnar Renolen | 2018-01-09 19:20:40 | Re: Getting started with first user. |