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

Re: wal_buffers, redux

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: wal_buffers, redux
Date: 2012-03-12 03:51:15
Message-ID: CAHGQGwGxPiiQFjAddHoU4XYx7VEKzXmzBAv0mS7aq4J4EdZ00w@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I've finally been able to run some more tests of the effect of
> adjusting wal_buffers to values higher than 16MB.  I ran the test on
> the 16 core (x 4 hw threads/core) IBM POWER7 machine, with my usual
> configuration settings:
>
> shared_buffers = 8GB
> maintenance_work_mem = 1GB
> synchronous_commit = off
> checkpoint_segments = 300
> checkpoint_timeout = 15min
> checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9
> wal_writer_delay = 20ms
>
> I ran three 30-minute tests at scale factor 300 with wal_buffers set
> at various values from 16MB up to 160MB, in multiples of 16MB, using
> pgbench with 32 clients and 32 threads in each case.  The short
> version is that 32MB seems to be significantly better than 16MB, by
> about 1000 tps, and after that it gets murky; full results are below.

Currently the max of wal_buffers is 16MB (i.e., the size of one WAL file)
when it's set to -1. Thanks to your result, we should increase the max to
32MB?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Etsuro FujitaDate: 2012-03-12 04:04:12
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-03-12 03:32:48
Subject: Re: VACUUM in SP-GiST

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group