| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
| Date: | 2005-07-08 13:39:05 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.OSF.4.61.0507081634050.187984@kosh.hut.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> We still don't know enough about the situation to know what a solution
> might look like. Is the slowdown Josh is seeing due to the extra CPU
> cost of the CRCs, or the extra I/O cost, or excessive locking of the
> WAL-related data structures while we do this stuff, or ???. Need more
> data.
I wonder if a different BLCKSZ would make a difference either way. Say,
1024 bytes instead of the default 8192.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-07-08 13:41:30 | Re: Hmmm 8.1 pg_dumpall cannot dump older db's? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-07-08 13:29:50 | Re: Must be owner to truncate? |