Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Maximum Possible Insert Performance?

From: William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Maximum Possible Insert Performance?
Date: 2003-11-24 17:19:20
Message-ID: bpteip$13d$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
This is an intriguing thought which leads me to think about a similar 
solution for even a production server and that's a solid state drive for 
just the WAL. What's the max disk space the WAL would ever take up? 
There's quite a few 512MB/1GB/2GB solid state drives available now in 
the ~$200-$500 range and if you never hit those limits...

When my current job batch is done, I'll save a copy of the dir and give 
the WAL on ramdrive a test. And perhaps even buy a Sandisk at the local 
store and run that through the hooper.

Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Mount WAL on RAM disk. WAL is most often hit area for heavy 
> updates/inserts. If you spped that up, things should be pretty faster.

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-11-24 17:25:58
Subject: Re: Maximum Possible Insert Performance?
Previous:From: Rajesh Kumar MallahDate: 2003-11-24 17:13:59
Subject: VACUUM problems with 7.4

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group