Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date
Msg-id 200507261531.18937.josh@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon,

> We should run tests with much higher wal_buffers numbers to nullify the
> effect described above and reduce contention. That way we will move
> towards the log disk speed being the limiting factor, patch or no patch.

I've run such tests, at a glance they do seem to improve performance.   I 
need some time to collate the results.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jochem van Dieten
Date:
Subject: Re: ENUM type
Next
From: "Kevin McArthur"
Date:
Subject: RESULT_OID Bug