Re: Disable WAL completely - Performance and Persistency research
| От | Craig Ringer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Disable WAL completely - Performance and Persistency research |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMsr+YGRMUDat0rcm6DzJQPYnb6QQD8K2x5bqG31qfFF4V7qdw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Disable WAL completely - Performance and Persistency research (Netanel Katzburg <netanel10k@gmail.com>) |
| Список | 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 ;)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: