| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: wal_buffer tests in |
| Date: | 2005-07-28 11:49:29 |
| Message-ID: | 87oe8n881i.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Folks,
>
> I ran a wal_buffer test series. It appears that increasing the
> wal_buffers is indeed very important for OLTP applications, potentially
> resulting in as much as a 15% average increase in transaction processing.
> What's interesting is that this is not just true for 8.1, it's true for
> 8.0.3 as well.
You have wal_buffer set to 2048? That's pretty radical compared to the default
of just 5. Your tests shows you had to go to this large a value to see the
maximum effect?
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-07-28 13:29:05 | Re: --enable-thread-safety on Win32 |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-07-28 11:32:48 | Re: snapshot build broken ... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claus Guttesen | 2005-07-28 11:52:03 | Re: Finding bottleneck |
| Previous Message | Gnanavel S | 2005-07-28 09:55:57 | Re: Left joining against two empty tables makes a query SLOW |