On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:59 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: > On 28 December 2012 10:21, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >
> I was also worried about the high variance in the results. Those > averages look rather meaningless. Which would be okay, I think, because > it'd mean that performance-wise the patch is a wash, For larger tuple sizes (>1000 && < 1800), the performance gain will be good. Please refer performance results by me and Kyotaro-san in below links: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C383BEAAE32@szxeml509-mbx http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20121228.170748.90887322.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp In fact, I believe for all tuples with length between 200 to 1800 bytes and changed values around 15~20%, there will be both performance gain as well as WAL reduction. The reason for keeping the logic same for smaller tuples (<=128 bytes) also same, that there is no much performance difference but still WAL reduction gain is visible. > but it is still achieving a lower WAL volume, which is good. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
