From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: too much WAL volume |
Date: | 2007-04-27 03:58:19 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.64.0704262332070.8030@westnet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> I am not sure that shrinking per WAL record size (other than the full
> page images), e.g. by only logging changed bytes and not whole tuples,
> would have a huge impact on OLTP tx/sec, since the limiting factor is
> IO's per second and not Mb per second.
With the kind of caching controller that's necessary for any serious OLTP
work with Postgres, number of I/Os per second isn't really an important
number. Total volume of writes to the WAL volume can be though. It's
difficult but not impossible to encounter a workload that becomes
bottlenecked by WAL volume on a good OLTP server, particularly because
that's often going to a single or RAID-1 disk. Whether those workloads
also have the appropriate properties such that their WAL could be shrunk
usefully in real-time is a good question.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2007-04-27 05:01:14 | Re: pgsql crollable cursor doesn't support one form of postgresql's cu |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-27 03:52:01 | Re: [Fwd: PGBuildfarm member narwhal Branch HEAD Status changed from OK to InstallCheck failure] |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zoltan Boszormenyi | 2007-04-27 06:08:14 | Re: New version of GENERATED/IDENTITY, was Re: parser dilemma |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-04-27 02:57:44 | Re: updated SORT/LIMIT patch |