Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs
Дата
Msg-id 24737.1175093503@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:46:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would it?  How wide is the "user and token" information?

> Sorry about the waste of time. I just noticed that the proposal is
> only for rows over 128 bytes. The token definition is:

> CREATE TABLE dspam_token_data (
>   uid smallint,
>   token bigint,
>   spam_hits int,
>   innocent_hits int,
>   last_hit date,
> );

> which is below the cutoff for the proposal.

Yeah, this illustrates my concern that the proposal is too narrowly
focused on a specific benchmark.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Florian G. Pflug"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs
Следующее
От: Magnus Hagander
Дата:
Сообщение: ECPG threads test