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 03:16:04
Message-ID: GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOGEIPCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > Here's a question then - what is the _drawback_ to having 1024
> wal_buffers
> > as opposed to 8?
>
> Waste of RAM?  You'd be better off leaving that 8 meg available for use
> as general-purpose buffers ...

What I mean is say you have an enterprise server doing heaps of transactions
with lots of work.  If you have scads of RAM, could you just shove up
wal_buffers really high and assume it will improve performance?

Chris


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kevin BrownDate: 2003-02-14 03:26:05
Subject: Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-02-14 03:10:35
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin BrownDate: 2003-02-14 03:26:05
Subject: Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-02-14 03:11:05
Subject: Re: location of the configuration files

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Kevin BrownDate: 2003-02-14 03:26:05
Subject: Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-02-14 03:10:35
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers

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