"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > OK. I've seen no performance numbers yet though. It just seems to me that > any performance patch proposal should start a discussion of what amount of > performance we expect to gain.
There exist proposals that can be prototyped and measured to see what potential they have. I don't see how this is one of them though. The only way I could see to prototype this is would, as Bruce said, be to turn fsync off and consider that the extreme end of the spectrum. The reality will lie somewhere in between and exactly where will depend on the value of the delay. > Unfortunately, this is *not* a patch I can test on TPCE or SpecJ, because > both > of those have ACID requirements which I don't think this would satisfy. I'd > have to modify the benchmark, and I already have 4 performance patches queue > which don't require that. I haven't read TPCE but if it's like TPCC then the simple addition of a UPS satisfies the ACID requirements even with fsync off entirely. Pretty lame but it's explicitly sufficient. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
