Fabrice Franquenk <Fabrice(dot)Franquenk(at)bull(dot)net> writes:
> Because i was trying to lower I/Os of the disks, i got the checkpoint
> timeout lowered to 150 seconds so i get twice the number the checkpoint.
> I was hoping it would reduce the number of I/Os on the disks because
> there would be less data to write in datafiles...
No, that's going to *increase* the amount of I/O: pages will be forced
to disk more often, and what's worse you'll be increasing the volume of
WAL data because of extra post-checkpoint page images written to WAL.
As a rule of thumb, you want checkpoints to occur as far apart as you
can stand, remembering that a longer distance back to the last
checkpoint means longer recovery time after a crash.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-novice by date
|Next:||From: Devrim GUNDUZ||Date: 2006-07-13 23:09:31|
|Subject: Re: The name of the game (was Re: postgre linkage with|
|Previous:||From: Richard Broersma Jr||Date: 2006-07-13 22:03:07|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The name of the game|