Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZQnmEpiACpD1qX+HO0CzLVCkbcAdTdjS9iikbmJhhYKtw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>> I think there's zero overlap. They're completely complimentary features.
>> It's not like normal WAL records have an irrelevant volume.
>
>
> Correct. Compressing a full-page image happens on the first update after a
> checkpoint, and the diff between old and new tuple is not used in that case.

Uh, I really just meant that one thing that might overlap is
considerations around the choice of compression algorithm. I think
that there was some useful discussion of that on the other thread as
well.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: jsonb and nested hstore