AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com>
Cc: "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Date: 2001-05-21 16:00:58
Message-ID: 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633682E0@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> Would it be possible to split the WAL traffic into two sets of files,

Sure, downside is two fsyncs :-( When I first suggested physical log
I had a separate file in mind, but that is imho only a small issue.

Of course people with more than 3 disks could benefit from a split.

Tom: If your ratio of physical pages vs WAL records is so bad, the config
should simply be changes to do fewer checkpoints (say every 20 min like a
typical Informix setup).

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-05-21 16:06:27 Re: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2001-05-21 15:49:28 AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem