| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| 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 04:23:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4003.1045196624@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> 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?
There is no such thing as infinite RAM (or if there is, you paid *way*
too much for your database server). My feeling is that it's a bad
idea to put more than you absolutely have to into single-use buffers.
Multi-purpose buffers are usually a better use of RAM.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sailesh Krishnamurthy | 2003-02-14 04:29:27 | PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-02-14 04:15:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sailesh Krishnamurthy | 2003-02-14 04:29:27 | PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR |
| Previous Message | mlw | 2003-02-14 04:15:57 | Configuration file patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-02-14 05:06:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-02-14 04:20:38 | Re: JBoss CMP Performance Problems with PostgreSQL 7.2.3 |