From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Rob Wultsch" <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,"Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Steve Crawford" <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Ben Chobot" <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
Date: | 2010-10-22 17:28:17 |
Message-ID: | 4CC183610200002500036CDC@gw.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance pgsql-www |
Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> has PG considered using a double write buffer similar to InnodB?
That seems inferior to the full_page_writes strategy, where you only
write a page twice the first time it is written after a checkpoint.
We're talking about when we might be able to write *less*, not more.
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rob Wultsch | 2010-10-22 18:41:48 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
Previous Message | Rob Wultsch | 2010-10-22 17:16:57 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rob Wultsch | 2010-10-22 18:41:48 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
Previous Message | Rob Wultsch | 2010-10-22 17:16:57 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |