From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: commit_delay, siblings |
Date: | 2005-06-29 21:38:28 |
Message-ID: | 1120081108.3940.32.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 10:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Group commit is a well-documented technique for improving performance,
>
> The issue here is not "is group commit a good idea in the abstract?".
> It is "is the commit_delay implementation of the idea worth a dime?"
> ... and the evidence we have all points to the answer "NO". We should
> not let theoretical arguments blind us to this.
OK, sometimes I sound too theoretical when I do my World History of
RDBMS notes, :-) ... all I meant was "lets hold off till we've measured
it".
> > I would ask that we hold off on their execution, at least for the
> > complete 8.1 beta performance test cycle.
>
> I'm willing to wait a week while Tatsuo runs some fresh tests. I'm
> not willing to wait indefinitely for evidence that I'm privately
> certain will not be forthcoming.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I see no need to move quickly. The
code's been there a while now.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-06-29 21:41:11 | Re: Open items |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2005-06-29 20:24:37 | Re: Proposal: associative arrays for plpgsql (concept) |