On 01/19/10 14:36, fkater(at)googlemail(dot)com wrote:
> Ivan Voras:
>> [I just skimmed this thread - did you increase the number of WAL logs to
>> something very large, like 128?]
> Yes, I tried even more.
> I will be writing data quite constantly in the real scenario
> later. So I wonder if increasing WAL logs will have a
> positive effect or not: AFAIK when I increase it, the
> duration after the max is hit will be longer then (which is
> not acceptable in my case).
> Could anyone confirm if I got it right?
It seems so - if you are writing constantly then you will probably get
lower but more long-term-stable performance from a smaller number of WAL
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Willy-Bas Loos||Date: 2010-01-19 17:07:10|
|Subject: Re: renice on an I/O bound box|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-01-19 15:25:46|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Faster CREATE DATABASE by delaying fsync (was 8.4.1 ubuntu karmic slow createdb) |