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: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs
Date: 2007-03-28 14:51:43
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:46:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would it?  How wide is the "user and token" information?

> Sorry about the waste of time. I just noticed that the proposal is
> only for rows over 128 bytes. The token definition is:

> CREATE TABLE dspam_token_data (
>   uid smallint,
>   token bigint,
>   spam_hits int,
>   innocent_hits int,
>   last_hit date,
> );

> which is below the cutoff for the proposal.

Yeah, this illustrates my concern that the proposal is too narrowly
focused on a specific benchmark.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-03-28 14:55:46
Subject: Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs
Previous:From: Florian G. PflugDate: 2007-03-28 13:51:45
Subject: Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group