Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin

From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Andrew McMillan" <andrew(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Matthew Schumacher" <matt(dot)s(at)aptalaska(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin
Date: 2005-07-29 17:13:41
Message-ID: BF0FB1D5.A3F5%llonergan@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tom,

On 7/29/05 7:12 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
>> I guess we see the real culprit here. Anyone surprised it's the WAL?
>
> You have not proved that at all.

As Alvaro pointed out, fsync has impact on more than WAL, so good point.
Interesting that fsync has such a huge impact on this situation though.

- Luke

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew Schumacher 2005-07-29 17:37:42 Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin 3.1.0
Previous Message Luke Lonergan 2005-07-29 17:11:10 Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin