Mark Woodward wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 07:07:55PM -0400, Mark Woodward wrote:
>>> I guess what I am saying is that PostgreSQL isn't "smooth," between
>>> checkpoints and vacuum, it is near impossible to make a product that
>>> performs consistently under high load.
>> Have you tuned the bgwriter and all the vacuum_cost stuff? I've get to
>> find a case where I couldn't smooth out the IO load so that it wasn't an
>> issue.
>
> In several project that I have been involved with, PostgreSQL had most of
> the important features to be used, but in one project, checkpoints caused
> us to time out under load. In this current project I am researching, I
> know that vacuum may be an issue. The load is brutally constant.
I was recently involved in a project where we had to decrease the
checkpoint_timeout . The problem was, that the database was performing
so many transactions that if we waiting for 5 minutes, checkpoint would
take entirely too long.
We ended up doing checkpoints every two minutes which with the increase
in checkpoint_segments and adjustment of bgwriter settings would level
out the load.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL
solutionssince 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
