Re: Disable WAL completely - Performance and Persistency research - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: Disable WAL completely - Performance and Persistency research
Date
Msg-id CAMsr+YGRMUDat0rcm6DzJQPYnb6QQD8K2x5bqG31qfFF4V7qdw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Disable WAL completely - Performance and Persistency research  (Netanel Katzburg <netanel10k@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On 11 July 2016 at 19:14, Netanel Katzburg <netanel10k@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

You were right, the method you described worked well. Thanks you!

But so far, could not get any noticeable improvement in Number of transactions / latency.


What are you comparing to?


To start with, compare with:

- an unpatched PostgreSQL, configured normally, with normal logged tables

- an unpatched PostgreSQL, using UNLOGGED tables

- an unpatched PostgreSQL, using UNLOGGED tables and synchronous_commit = off (or fsync=off, but remember, that disables data integrity protections for system catalogs and everything).


Make sure you're introducing a suitably write-concurrent workload that might actually be waiting on WAL. 

Personally I'd be surprised if you saw any significant difference over using UNLOGGED tables. That's why we have them ;)

--
 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: \timing interval
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: PSA: Systemd will kill PostgreSQL