Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date: 2005-07-26 22:31:18
Message-ID: 200507261531.18937.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon,

> We should run tests with much higher wal_buffers numbers to nullify the
> effect described above and reduce contention. That way we will move
> towards the log disk speed being the limiting factor, patch or no patch.

I've run such tests, at a glance they do seem to improve performance. I
need some time to collate the results.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-07-26 22:34:11 Re: ENUM type
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2005-07-26 22:30:11 Re: ENUM type