From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
Date: | 2010-06-15 23:18:19 |
Message-ID: | 4C180A3B.7090905@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 6/15/10 10:37 AM, Chris Browne wrote:
> swampler(at)noao(dot)edu (Steve Wampler) writes:
>> Or does losing WAL files mandate a new initdb?
>
> Losing WAL would mandate initdb, so I'd think this all fits into the
> set of stuff worth putting onto ramfs/tmpfs. Certainly it'll all be
> significant to the performance focus.
I'd like to see some figures about WAL on RAMfs vs. simply turning off
fsync and full_page_writes. Per Gavin's tests, PostgreSQL is already
close to TokyoCabinet/MongoDB performance just with those turned off; I
wonder if actually having the WAL on a memory partition would make any
real difference in throughput.
I've seen a lot of call for this recently, especially since PostgreSQL
seems to be increasingly in use as a reporting server for Hadoop. Might
be worth experimenting with just making wal writing a no-op. We'd also
want to disable checkpointing, of course.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jgardner@jonathangardner.net | 2010-06-16 06:30:30 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-06-15 23:09:58 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |