From: | Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |
Date: | 2010-11-05 12:12:09 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim5RaimYK15UdGvkgG_8KhCJdt_QguNLgxKh63Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch> wrote:
> Marti Raudsepp <marti 'at' juffo.org> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 13:32, A B <gentosaker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I was just thinking about the case where I will have almost 100%
>>> selects, but still needs something better than a plain key-value
>>> storage so I can do some sql queries.
>>> The server will just boot, load data, run, hopefully not crash but if
>>> it would, just start over with load and run.
>>
>> If you want fast read queries then changing
>> fsync/full_page_writes/synchronous_commit won't help you.
>
> That illustrates how knowing the reasoning of this particular
> requests makes new suggestions worthwhile, while previous ones
> are now seen as useless.
I disagree that they are useless - the stated mechanism was "start,
load data, and run". Changing the params above won't likely change
much in the 'run' stage but would they help in the 'load' stage?
--
Jon
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lello, Nick | 2010-11-05 12:26:40 | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |
Previous Message | Guillaume Cottenceau | 2010-11-05 12:08:26 | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |