Re: XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD
Subject Re: XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table
Date
Msg-id E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA579FC3989@m0143.s-mxs.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table  (Mark Wong <markw@osdl.org>)
Responses Re: XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> I'm planning on continuing to increase XLOG_BLCKSZ and wal_buffers to
> determine when the throughput starts to level out or drop

I think for an even better comparison you should scale wal_buffers
down with increasing XLOG_BLCKSZ, so that the xlog buffer has a fixed
size in kb.

Reasonable wal_buffers imho amount to at least 256kb, better yet 512 or
1 Mb,
with sufficiently large transactions (and to try to factor out the
difference
between blocksizes).

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Larry Rosenman"
Date:
Subject: Re: Logging pg_autovacuum
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Automatic free space map filling