Re: wal_level=archive gives better performance than minimal - why? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: wal_level=archive gives better performance than minimal - why?
Date
Msg-id 4F14A649.5060501@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to wal_level=archive gives better performance than minimal - why?  (Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>)
Responses Re: wal_level=archive gives better performance than minimal - why?  (Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>)
List pgsql-performance
On 01/12/2012 06:17 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I've run a series fo pgbench benchmarks with the aim to see the effect
> of moving the WAL logs to a separate drive, and one thing that really
> surprised me is that the archive log level seems to give much better
> performance than minimal log level.

How repeatable is this?  If you always run minimal first and then
archive, that might be the actual cause of the difference.  In this
situation I would normally run this 12 times, with this sort of pattern:

minimal
minimal
minimal
archive
archive
archive
minimal
minimal
minimal
archive
archive
archive

To make sure the difference wasn't some variation on "gets slower after
each run".  pgbench suffers a lot from problems in that class.

--
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: auto vacuum, not working?
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: wal_level=archive gives better performance than minimal - why?