Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew McMillan <andrew(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>,Matthew Schumacher <matt(dot)s(at)aptalaska(dot)net>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin
Date: 2005-07-29 13:23:19
Message-ID: 20050729132319.GA13680@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 03:01:07AM -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:

> I guess we see the real culprit here.  Anyone surprised it's the WAL?

So what?  Are you planning to suggest people to turn fsync=false?

I just had a person lose 3 days of data on some tables because of that,
even when checkpoints were 5 minutes apart.  With fsync off, there's no
work _at all_ going on, not just the WAL -- heap/index file fsync at
checkpoint is also skipped.  This is no good.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"In a specialized industrial society, it would be a disaster
to have kids running around loose." (Paul Graham)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2005-07-29 14:00:38
Subject: Re: BUG #1797: Problem using Limit in a function, seqscan
Previous:From: Magno LeiteDate: 2005-07-29 12:52:45
Subject: BUG #1797: Problem using Limit in a function, seqscan

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group