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

Re: moving pg_xlog -- yeah, it's worth it!

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: hannu(at)krosing(dot)net, alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca, jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: moving pg_xlog -- yeah, it's worth it!
Date: 2010-02-13 06:29:38
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I wonder if it might also pay to make the background writer even more
> aggressive than we have, so that SELECT-only queries don't spend so
> much time writing pages.
You can easily quantify if the BGW is aggressive enough.  Buffers leave 
the cache three ways, and they each show up as separate counts in 
pg_stat_bgwriter:  buffers_checkpoint, buffers_clean (the BGW), and 
buffers_backend (the queries).  Cranking it up further tends to shift 
writes out of buffers_backend, which are the ones you want to avoid, 
toward buffers_clean instead.  If buffers_backend is already low on a 
percentage basis compared to the other two, there's little benefit in 
trying to make the BGW do more.

Greg Smith    2ndQuadrant   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-02-13 07:05:41
Subject: Re: Dell PERC H700/H800
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-02-12 20:59:49
Subject: Re: Almost infinite query -> Different Query Plan when changing where clause value

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group