| From: | "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Zdenek Kotala" <zdenek(dot)kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, "Koichi Suzuki" <suzuki(dot)koichi(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How to avoid transaction ID wrap |
| Date: | 2006-06-08 14:23:36 |
| Message-ID: | 18209.24.91.171.78.1149776616.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 07:07:55PM -0400, Mark Woodward wrote:
>> I guess what I am saying is that PostgreSQL isn't "smooth," between
>> checkpoints and vacuum, it is near impossible to make a product that
>> performs consistently under high load.
>
> Have you tuned the bgwriter and all the vacuum_cost stuff? I've get to
> find a case where I couldn't smooth out the IO load so that it wasn't an
> issue.
In several project that I have been involved with, PostgreSQL had most of
the important features to be used, but in one project, checkpoints caused
us to time out under load. In this current project I am researching, I
know that vacuum may be an issue. The load is brutally constant.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-08 14:27:56 | Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-08 14:05:44 | Re: ADD/DROP INHERITS |