On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Greg Smith wrote:
> If you're seeing <100TPS you should consider if it's because you're limited
> by how fast WAL commits can make it to disk. If you really want good insert
> performance, there is no substitute for getting a disk controller with a good
> battery-backed cache to work around that. You could just put the WAL xlog
> directory on a RAID-1 pair of disks to accelerate that, you don't have to
> move the whole database to a new controller.
Hey, you *just* beat me to it.
Yes, that's quite right. My suggestion was to move the whole thing, but
Greg is correct - you only need to put the WAL on a cached disc system.
That'd be quite a bit cheaper, I'd imagine.
Another case of that small SSD drive being useful, I think.
Matthew
