| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
| Date: | 2005-07-21 18:02:59 |
| Message-ID: | 200507211102.59996.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> Josh, I see that all of those runs seem to be using wal_buffers = 8.
> Have you tried materially increasing wal_buffers (say to 100 or 1000)
> and/or experimenting with different wal_sync_method options since we
> fixed the bufmgrlock problem? I am wondering if the real issue is
> WAL buffer contention or something like that.
>
> It would also be useful to compare these runs to runs with fsync = off,
> just to see how the performance changes.
As you know, I've been out of town. I'll be running more tests, and
collating my existing test results over then next few days.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-21 18:03:08 | Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-07-21 16:49:33 | Re: Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH |