Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nM+MMiyVaHXG+aw2bp3BoxcKvPPLH1yghjkZ7mneCVejzA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12 December 2014 at 18:04, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Well, it seems we need to see some actual cases where compression does > help before moving forward. I thought Amit had some amazing numbers for > WAL compression --- has that changed? For background processes, like VACUUM, then WAL compression will be helpful. The numbers show that only applies to FPWs. I remain concerned about the cost in foreground processes, especially since the cost will be paid immediately after checkpoint, making our spikes worse. What I don't understand is why we aren't working on double buffering, since that cost would be paid in a background process and would be evenly spread out across a checkpoint. Plus we'd be able to remove FPWs altogether, which is like 100% compression. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: