Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs
Date
Msg-id 24737.1175093503@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs
Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs
List pgsql-hackers
Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:46:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would it?  How wide is the "user and token" information?

> Sorry about the waste of time. I just noticed that the proposal is
> only for rows over 128 bytes. The token definition is:

> CREATE TABLE dspam_token_data (
>   uid smallint,
>   token bigint,
>   spam_hits int,
>   innocent_hits int,
>   last_hit date,
> );

> which is below the cutoff for the proposal.

Yeah, this illustrates my concern that the proposal is too narrowly
focused on a specific benchmark.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Florian G. Pflug"
Date:
Subject: Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: ECPG threads test