From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
To: kadams@mxlogic.com
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: WAL log performance/efficiency question
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:23:00 +0100
Message-ID: <464C6544.9070104@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1179410671.26604.3.camel@MXLRMT-208.corp.mxlogic.com>
References: <1179410671.26604.3.camel@MXLRMT-208.corp.mxlogic.com>
Keaton Adams wrote:
> Using an 8K data page:
>
> 8K data page (8192 bytes)
> Less page header and row overhead leaves ~8000 bytes
> At 100 bytes per row = ~80 rows/page
> Rows loaded: 250,000 / 80 = 3125 data pages * 8192 = 25,600,000 bytes /
> 1048576 = ~ 24.4 MB of data page space.
That's not accurate. There's 32 bytes of overhead per row, and that
gives you just 61 tuples per page. Anyhow, I'd suggest measuring the
real table size with pg_relpages function (from contrib/pgstattuple) or
from pg_class.relpages column (after ANALYZE).
> We are running on PostgreSQL 8.1.4 and are planning to move to 8.3 when
> it becomes available. Are there space utilization/performance
> improvements in WAL logging in the upcoming release?
One big change in 8.3 is that COPY on a table that's been created or
truncated in the same transaction doesn't need to write WAL at all, if
WAL archiving isn't enabled.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: heikki@enterprisedb.com, kadams@mxlogic.com
Subject: Re: WAL log performance/efficiency question
In-Reply-To: <464C6544.9070104@enterprisedb.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox