| From: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Chris <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inserts optimization? |
| Date: | 2006-04-13 18:59:23 |
| Message-ID: | cone.1144954763.735087.95544.5001@35st-server.simplicato.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane writes:
> Or at least try to do multiple inserts per transaction.
Will see if the program has an option like that.
> Also, increasing checkpoint_segments and possibly wal_buffers helps a
Will try those.
>Try to get the WAL onto a separate disk
>spindle if you can. (These things don't matter for SELECTs, but they
>do matter for writes.)
This particular server is pretty much what I inherited for now for this
project.and its Raid 5. There is a new server I am setting up
soon... 8 disks which we are planning to setup
6 disks in RAID 10
2 Hot spares
In RAID 10 would it matter that WALL is in the same RAID set?
Would it be better:
4 disks in RAID10 Data
2 disks RAID 1 WALL
2 hot spares
All in the same RAID controller
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-04-13 19:38:21 | Re: bad performance on Solaris 10 |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-04-13 18:48:22 | Re: Blocks read for index scans |