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

Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Date: 2003-02-14 04:23:44
Message-ID: 4003.1045196624@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> What I mean is say you have an enterprise server doing heaps of transactions
> with lots of work.  If you have scads of RAM, could you just shove up
> wal_buffers really high and assume it will improve performance?

There is no such thing as infinite RAM (or if there is, you paid *way*
too much for your database server).  My feeling is that it's a bad
idea to put more than you absolutely have to into single-use buffers.
Multi-purpose buffers are usually a better use of RAM.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kevin BrownDate: 2003-02-14 05:06:00
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-02-14 04:20:38
Subject: Re: JBoss CMP Performance Problems with PostgreSQL 7.2.3

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Sailesh KrishnamurthyDate: 2003-02-14 04:29:27
Subject: PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR
Previous:From: mlwDate: 2003-02-14 04:15:57
Subject: Configuration file patch

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Sailesh KrishnamurthyDate: 2003-02-14 04:29:27
Subject: PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-02-14 04:15:13
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration

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