Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question
Date
Msg-id alpine.GSO.2.01.0907081538290.14242@westnet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question  (Dan Armbrust <daniel.armbrust.list@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Dan Armbrust wrote:

> My takeaway is that starting the checkpoint process is really
> expensive - so I don't want to start it very frequently.  And the only
> downside to longer intervals between checkpoints is a longer recovery
> time if the system crashes?

And additional disk space wasted in hold the write-ahead logs.  You're
moving in the right direction here, the less checkpoints the better as
long as you can stand the recovery time.  What you'll discover if you bump
checkpoint_segments up high enough is that you have to lengthen the test
run you're trying, because eventually you'll reach a point where there are
none of them happening during some test runs.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question
Next
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: Oracle Help in PG?