From: | u15074 <u15074(at)hs-harz(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Checkpoint question |
Date: | 2003-07-21 13:57:50 |
Message-ID: | 1058795870.3f1bf15e93e98@webmail.hs-harz.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Zitat von Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> A checkpoint pushes out all unwritten data since the last checkpoint.
> So yeah, it stands to reason that if you increase the time between
> checkpoints, each checkpoint will take longer. Whether this is really
> a problem is not clear --- the checkpoint is happening in background
> after all. Why should you care how long it takes?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
What I want to do, is to write a lot of data in the database over a longer
period (assume 1 hour or longer) with constant data rates - I am trying to use
Postgres to store measurement data.
When I only had a few checkpoint_segments (3 I think), I always got an
interruption when the database was checkpointing (what took about 3 seconds).
So I increased the checkpoint_segments and the pauses went away.
But now I think if I reach the segments limit again, I will get even bigger
pauses (of course at some point in the time a checkpoint has to be performed).
By the way, if you say, checkpointing is happening in the background, I don't
know what causes the pauses.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-21 14:06:38 | Re: Checkpoint question |
Previous Message | Raymond | 2003-07-21 13:36:20 | NEW Used in Non-Rule Query |