Unix Technical Forum

Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks

This is a discussion on Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks within the pgsql Hackers forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> "Mark Cave-Ayland" <m.cave-ayland@webbased.co.uk> writes: > I also noticed your comment above that mentioned that compression would be > less ...


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Database Server Software > PostgreSQL > pgsql Hackers

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 05:10 AM
Tom Lane
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks

"Mark Cave-Ayland" <m.cave-ayland@webbased.co.uk> writes:
> I also noticed your comment above that mentioned that compression would be
> less effective as the pages became more full. Would changing the loading
> factor of database pages have an effect here, as I would have thought that
> the WAL would be fsync'd more aggressively than the heap?


Yeah, it's predictable that leaving more free space per page would make
the optimization more effective. I don't have anything quantitative to
say about it.

> If you do manage to go ahead with the code, I'd be very interested to see
> some comparisons in bytes written to XLog for old and new approaches for
> some inserts/updates. Perhaps we could ask Mark to run another TPC benchmark
> at OSDL when this and the CRC changes have been completed.


Good idea. One point is that the larger the checkpoint interval, the
less this matters at all, because a backup block is only written for
a given page the first time it is modified after a checkpoint. (This
is one of the big reasons frequent checkpoints are expensive.) IIRC
Mark was using unrealistically large checkpoint intervals, which would
mean he'd underestimate the effects of optimizing backup blocks.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 05:10 AM
Alvaro Herrera
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:12:34AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Mark Cave-Ayland" <m.cave-ayland@webbased.co.uk> writes:
> > I also noticed your comment above that mentioned that compression would be
> > less effective as the pages became more full. Would changing the loading
> > factor of database pages have an effect here, as I would have thought that
> > the WAL would be fsync'd more aggressively than the heap?

>
> Yeah, it's predictable that leaving more free space per page would make
> the optimization more effective.


But it would also increase the number of pages, so maybe there would
have to be block dumps more often, which may make the whole thing worse
on average.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>)
"La realidad se compone de muchos sueños, todos ellos diferentes,
pero en cierto aspecto, parecidos..." (Yo, hablando de sueños eróticos)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
www.UnixAdminTalk.com