On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 08:11:18PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-02-04 14:09:57 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 01:28:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > > Meanwhile, in friendlier cases, like "one short and one long field, no > > > change", we're seeing big improvements. That particular case shows a > > > speedup of 21% and a WAL reduction of 36%. That's a pretty big deal, > > > and I think not unrepresentative of many real-world workloads. Some > > > might well do better, having either more or longer unchanged fields. > > > Assuming that the logic isn't buggy, a point in need of further study, > > > I'm starting to feel like we want to have this. And I might even be > > > tempted to remove the table-level off switch. > > > > Does this feature relate to compression of WAL page images at all? > > No.
I guess it bothers me we are working on compressing row change sets while the majority(?) of WAL is page images. I know we had a page image compression patch that got stalled. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
