| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 03:05:04 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOCEIPCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
> I don't think this is based on a useful test for wal_buffers. The
> wal_buffers setting only has to be large enough for the maximum amount
> of WAL log data that your system emits between commits, because a commit
> (from anyone) is going to flush the WAL data to disk (for everyone).
> So a benchmark based on short transactions is just not going to show
> any benefit to increasing the setting.
Here's a question then - what is the _drawback_ to having 1024 wal_buffers
as opposed to 8?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-14 03:10:35 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-14 03:04:20 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-14 03:10:35 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-14 03:04:20 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-14 03:10:35 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-14 03:04:20 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |