On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 30 August 2013 04:55, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My idea is very simple, just compress FPW because FPW is
>> a big part of WAL. I used pglz_compress() as a compression method,
>> but you might think that other method is better. We can add
>> something like FPW-compression-hook for that later. The patch
>> adds new GUC parameter, but I'm thinking to merge it to full_page_writes
>> parameter to avoid increasing the number of GUC. That is,
>> I'm thinking to change full_page_writes so that it can accept new value
>> 'compress'.
>> * Result
>>   [tps]
>>   1386.8 (compress_backup_block = off)
>>   1627.7 (compress_backup_block = on)
>>   [the amount of WAL generated during running pgbench]
>>   4302 MB (compress_backup_block = off)
>>   1521 MB (compress_backup_block = on)
> Compressing FPWs definitely makes sense for bulk actions.
> I'm worried that the loss of performance occurs by greatly elongating
> transaction response times immediately after a checkpoint, which were
> already a problem. I'd be interested to look at the response time
> curves there.

Yep, I agree that we should check how the compression of FPW affects
the response time, especially just after checkpoint starts.

> I was thinking about this and about our previous thoughts about double
> buffering. FPWs are made in foreground, so will always slow down
> transaction rates. If we could move to double buffering we could avoid
> FPWs altogether. Thoughts?

If I understand the double buffering correctly, it would eliminate the need for
FPW. But I'm not sure how easy we can implement the double buffering.


Fujii Masao

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to