Re: problems with making relfilenodes 56-bits - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: problems with making relfilenodes 56-bits
Date
Msg-id 20221001002044.ih44tabalyv2wv6x@awork3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: problems with making relfilenodes 56-bits  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: problems with making relfilenodes 56-bits  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Re: problems with making relfilenodes 56-bits  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Re: problems with making relfilenodes 56-bits  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2022-09-30 15:36:11 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I have done some testing around this area to see the impact on WAL
> size especially when WAL sizes are smaller, with a very simple test
> with insert/update/delete I can see around an 11% increase in WAL size
> [1] then I did some more test with pgbench with smaller scale
> factor(1) there I do not see a significant increase in the WAL size
> although it increases WAL size around 1-2%. [2].

I think it'd be interesting to look at per-record-type stats between two
equivalent workload, to see where practical workloads suffer the most
(possibly with fpw=off, to make things more repeatable).

I think it'd be an OK tradeoff to optimize WAL usage for a few of the worst to
pay off for 56bit relfilenodes. The class of problems foreclosed is large
enough to "waste" "improvement potential" on this.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] [meson] add a default option prefix=/usr/local/pgsql