From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Netanel Katzburg <netanel10k(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Disable WAL completely - Performance and Persistency research |
Date: | 2016-07-11 12:45:59 |
Message-ID: | CAMsr+YGRMUDat0rcm6DzJQPYnb6QQD8K2x5bqG31qfFF4V7qdw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11 July 2016 at 19:14, Netanel Katzburg <netanel10k(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You were right, the method you described worked well. Thanks you!
>
> But so far, could not get any noticeable improvement in Number of
> transactions / latency.
>
>
What are you comparing to?
To start with, compare with:
- an unpatched PostgreSQL, configured normally, with normal logged tables
- an unpatched PostgreSQL, using UNLOGGED tables
- an unpatched PostgreSQL, using UNLOGGED tables and synchronous_commit =
off (or fsync=off, but remember, that disables data integrity protections
for system catalogs and everything).
Make sure you're introducing a suitably write-concurrent workload that
might actually be waiting on WAL.
Personally I'd be surprised if you saw any significant difference over
using UNLOGGED tables. That's why we have them ;)
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-07-11 12:46:49 | Re: PSA: Systemd will kill PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-07-11 12:35:58 | Re: \timing interval |