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

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>,"Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results
Date: 2003-02-12 05:08:38
Message-ID: GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOKEIBCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
> > I am now going to leave it on 5000 and play with wal_buffers.
> >  Is there anything else people are interested in me trying?
>
> Keenly interested.  Who wouldn't want to know how to optimize it?
> That's the hardest guideline to find.

Oops - what that sentence was supposed to say is "Is there anyone else
interested in me trying any other variables?"

What I don't really know is what is actually affected by wal_buffers?  I
assume my select only tests won't even touch the WAL, so I guess I have to
just play with tpc-b.

Chris


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-02-12 05:12:03
Subject: Re: Hash grouping, aggregates
Previous:From: Dann CorbitDate: 2003-02-12 04:58:50
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2003-02-12 05:19:30
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results
Previous:From: Dann CorbitDate: 2003-02-12 04:58:50
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

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