| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris(dot)kings-lynne(at)calorieking(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martin Scholes <marty(at)iicolo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WAL Bypass for indexes |
| Date: | 2006-04-03 01:43:40 |
| Message-ID: | 44307DCC.3050508@calorieking.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Martin's proposal at least looks sensible; he just hasn't quite made the
> case that it's worth doing. If you're running a system that hardly ever
> crashes, you might be willing to accept index rebuilds during crash
> recovery, especially for indexes on relatively small, but frequently
> updated, tables (which should have reasonably short rebuild times).
> Obviously this would have to be configurable per-index, or at least
> per-table, and I agree that it likely would never be the default.
> But it could be a good tradeoff for some cases.
My web system hasn't crashed in years, and last time I upgraded the
index rebuild time was maybe 30 mins? So, I think a typical web
application doesn't _really_ have that much data, and would greatly
benefit from cranking the TPS.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-04-03 01:53:01 | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-03 01:34:54 | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |