Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-04-16 17:52:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's more than a 5X penalty, which seems like it would make the
>> feature unusable; unless there is an argument that that's an extreme
>> case that wouldn't be representative of most real-world usage.
>> Which there may well be; I've not been following this thread carefully.
> The 4 % was with the feature disabled (in comparison to before it's
> introduction), we're not sure where that's coming from. But the 5x - and
> that was just on a mid-sized box - is with the feature enabled.
128 processors is a mid-sized box? Or if you didn't have 128 processors,
why are you testing "-c 128 -j 128" cases?
More seriously, the complaints here seem to center on performance in a
read-only workload; but I don't actually see why you'd want to turn on
this feature in a read-only, or even read-mostly, workload. It exists for
the benefit of people who are trying to keep their pg_xlog/ directories
reasonably sized, no? That doesn't sound very read-only-ish to me.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
