| 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 03:16:04 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOGEIPCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| 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:
> > Here's a question then - what is the _drawback_ to having 1024
> wal_buffers
> > as opposed to 8?
>
> Waste of RAM? You'd be better off leaving that 8 meg available for use
> as general-purpose buffers ...
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?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-02-14 03:26:05 | Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-14 03:10:35 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-02-14 03:26:05 | Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-14 03:11:05 | Re: location of the configuration files |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-02-14 03:26:05 | Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-14 03:10:35 | Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers |