| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option |
| Date: | 2007-02-27 00:20:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20070227002053.GT19104@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> The interesting point is you can have a huge data grinding app, yet with
> other tables alongside that hold more important data. In that scenario,
> 90% of the data would be COMMIT NOWAIT, whilst the small important data
> is safe.
Does this means that the regular COMMIT is slower because it has to
force more data to disk? I imagine that this isn't the case, because
it's not the write itself that's slow; rather, it's the wait until the
fsync on WAL is reported complete. However, did you measure this?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | A.M. | 2007-02-27 00:27:09 | Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-27 00:08:26 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |