Re: Slow updates, poor IO

I've canned the db and got rid my of data.
I'm in the midst of doing some other benchmarking for a possible change
to the bacula database.

Loading up 1M records into a table of 60M records complete with indexes.
It's still going...

--john

Dan Langille wrote:
>
> On Sep 28, 2008, at 10:01 PM, John Huttley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Greg Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, John Huttley wrote:
>>>
>>>> checkpoint _segments=16 is fine, going to 64 made no improvement.
>>>
>>> You might find that it does *after* increasing shared_buffers. If
>>> the buffer cache is really small, the checkpoints can't have very
>>> much work to do, so their impact on performance is smaller. Once
>>> you've got a couple of hundred MB on there, the per-checkpoint
>>> overhead can be considerable.
>>>
>> Ahh bugger, I've just trashed my test setup.
>
> Pardon? How did you do that?
>