Re: zheap: a new storage format for PostgreSQL

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: zheap: a new storage format for PostgreSQL
Date: 2018-12-06 05:42:53
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+Lop8aXu7zNXWTQKxhZBnnAabLS9S1S+LY_XNAp5oJ6A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:03 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> čt 6. 12. 2018 v 5:02 odesílatel Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> napsal:
>>
>> COPY command seems to have improved very slightly with zheap in both with size of wal and execution time. I also did some tests with insert statement where I could see some regression in zheap when compared to heap with respect to execution time. With further more investigation I will reply here.
>>
>
> 20% of size reduction looks like effect of fill factor.
>

I think it is because of smaller zheap tuple sizes. Mithun can tell
more about setup whether he has used different fillfactor or anything
else which could lead to such a big difference.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-12-06 05:43:35 Re: Use durable_unlink for .ready and .done files for WAL segment removal
Previous Message Nagaura, Ryohei 2018-12-06 05:19:57 RE: Timeout parameters