SEO
vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
04-11-2008, 04:10 AM
| ||||
| ||||
 Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks "Mark Cave-Ayland" <m.cave-ayland@webbased.co.uk> writes: > I also noticed your comment above that mentioned that compression would be > less effective as the pages became more full. Would changing the loading > factor of database pages have an effect here, as I would have thought that > the WAL would be fsync'd more aggressively than the heap? Yeah, it's predictable that leaving more free space per page would make the optimization more effective. I don't have anything quantitative to say about it. > If you do manage to go ahead with the code, I'd be very interested to see > some comparisons in bytes written to XLog for old and new approaches for > some inserts/updates. Perhaps we could ask Mark to run another TPC benchmark > at OSDL when this and the CRC changes have been completed. Good idea. One point is that the larger the checkpoint interval, the less this matters at all, because a backup block is only written for a given page the first time it is modified after a checkpoint. (This is one of the big reasons frequent checkpoints are expensive.) IIRC Mark was using unrealistically large checkpoint intervals, which would mean he'd underestimate the effects of optimizing backup blocks. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org      |
|
04-11-2008, 04:10 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:12:34AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Mark Cave-Ayland" <m.cave-ayland@webbased.co.uk> writes: > > I also noticed your comment above that mentioned that compression would be > > less effective as the pages became more full. Would changing the loading > > factor of database pages have an effect here, as I would have thought that > > the WAL would be fsync'd more aggressively than the heap? > > Yeah, it's predictable that leaving more free space per page would make > the optimization more effective. But it would also increase the number of pages, so maybe there would have to be block dumps more often, which may make the whole thing worse on average. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>) "La realidad se compone de muchos sueños, todos ellos diferentes, pero en cierto aspecto, parecidos..." (Yo, hablando de sueños eróticos) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org |
Linear Mode
