Re: Four issues why "old elephants" lack performance: Explanation sought Four issues why "old elephants" lack performance: Explanation sought

From: Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Four issues why "old elephants" lack performance: Explanation sought Four issues why "old elephants" lack performance: Explanation sought
Date: 2012-02-26 16:38:52
Message-ID: 20120226163852.GA2512@hermes.hilbert.loc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 08:37:54AM -0600, Andy Colson wrote:

>> 3. WAL logging
>
> PG writes a transaction twice. Once to WAL and once to
> the DB. WAL is a simple and quick write, and is only ever
> used if your computer crashes and PG has to re-play
> transactions to get the db into a good/known state. Its a
> safety measure that doesn't really take much time, and I
> don't think I've heard of anyone being WAL bound. Although
> it does increase IO ops, it's not the biggest usage of IO.
> This one falls under "lets be safe" which is something NoSQL
> did away with. Its not something I want to give up,
> personally. I like using a net.

And, one could still effectively disable WAL by using
unlogged tables.

Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-02-26 17:46:58 Re: How to debugging a an external C function(IMMUTABLE STRICT )
Previous Message Clodoaldo Neto 2012-02-26 15:45:16 Constant value for a partitioned table query inside a plpgsql function