itions. If you have an SMP box, please run some tests.
M
_ Original message _
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL Bypass for indexes
Author: Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05th April 2006 11:0:34 AM
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 09:40 -0700, Martin Scholes wrote:
> > I w
Title: Converted from Rich Text
I wrote:
> I will run multiple tests and post the actual numbers.
I did run more extensive tests and did not bother writing down the numbers, and here's why: the unmodified Pg ran pgbench with a whopping average of 6.3% time in IO wait.
If I was abl
e: 02nd April 2006 10:48:19 PM
"Martin Scholes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Ok Tom, I stand corrected.
> I downloaded the latest snapshot and both scenarios (normal and WAL bypass => for indexes) produced between 185 and 230 tps on my machine.
> The lesson h
gives over 100% speedup, and the speedup is so good that skipping WAL for indexes does basically nothing.
Kudos.
Cheers,
M
_ Original message _
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL Bypass for indexes
Author: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02nd April 2006 5:17:50 PM
&
Title: Converted from Rich Text
I have followed the discussion from 3 months ago on WAL bypass and wanted to offer some more information.
I have long believed that the bottleneck in transaction-oriented systems is the writing of the indexes, complete with splits and merges. A single u
