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

Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,<pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Date: 2003-02-14 03:05:04
Message-ID: GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOCEIPCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
> I don't think this is based on a useful test for wal_buffers.  The
> wal_buffers setting only has to be large enough for the maximum amount
> of WAL log data that your system emits between commits, because a commit
> (from anyone) is going to flush the WAL data to disk (for everyone).
> So a benchmark based on short transactions is just not going to show
> any benefit to increasing the setting.

Here's a question then - what is the _drawback_ to having 1024 wal_buffers
as opposed to 8?

Chris


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-02-14 03:10:35
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-02-14 03:04:20
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-02-14 03:10:35
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-02-14 03:04:20
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-02-14 03:10:35
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-02-14 03:04:20
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers

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