Re: too much WAL volume

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: too much WAL volume
Date: 2007-04-27 03:58:19
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0704262332070.8030@westnet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:

> I am not sure that shrinking per WAL record size (other than the full
> page images), e.g. by only logging changed bytes and not whole tuples,
> would have a huge impact on OLTP tx/sec, since the limiting factor is
> IO's per second and not Mb per second.

With the kind of caching controller that's necessary for any serious OLTP
work with Postgres, number of I/Os per second isn't really an important
number. Total volume of writes to the WAL volume can be though. It's
difficult but not impossible to encounter a workload that becomes
bottlenecked by WAL volume on a good OLTP server, particularly because
that's often going to a single or RAID-1 disk. Whether those workloads
also have the appropriate properties such that their WAL could be shrunk
usefully in real-time is a good question.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2007-04-27 05:01:14 Re: pgsql crollable cursor doesn't support one form of postgresql's cu
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-04-27 03:52:01 Re: [Fwd: PGBuildfarm member narwhal Branch HEAD Status changed from OK to InstallCheck failure]

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zoltan Boszormenyi 2007-04-27 06:08:14 Re: New version of GENERATED/IDENTITY, was Re: parser dilemma
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-04-27 02:57:44 Re: updated SORT/LIMIT patch