Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs
Date: 2007-03-28 13:46:30
Message-ID: 23723.1175089590@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> We use DSPAM as one of our anti-spam options. Its UPDATE pattern is to
> increment a spam counter or a not-spam counter while keeping the user and
> token information the same. This would benefit from this optimization.

Would it?  How wide is the "user and token" information?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Florian G. PflugDate: 2007-03-28 13:51:45
Subject: Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2007-03-28 13:33:50
Subject: Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group