| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2003-02-12 05:19:30 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2003-02-12 04:58:50 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-12 05:12:03 | Re: Hash grouping, aggregates |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2003-02-12 04:58:50 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results |