Re: performance problem - 10.000 databases

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performance problem - 10.000 databases
Date: 2003-11-08 20:38:24
Message-ID: 20031108203823.GQ24094@ns.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

* Christopher Browne (cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info) wrote:
> On one of our test servers, I set "fsync=false", and a test load's
> load time dropped from about 90 minutes to 3 minutes. (It was REALLY
> update heavy, with huge numbers of tiny transactions.)
>
> Which is, yes, quite spectacularly faster. But also quite
> spectacularly unsafe.
>
> I'm willing to live with the risk on a test box whose purpose is
> _testing_; it's certainly not a good thing to do in production.

Would it be possible to have the effectively done for a specific
transaction? If this was done as a single large transaction could there
be an option to say "don't fsync this until it's all done and then do it
all" or something? Just looking for a way to get the 'best of both
worlds'...

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steven Tower 2003-11-08 20:43:38 Re: Database Error (Bogus atrribute number 24....)
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2003-11-08 17:54:23 Re: Postgres Web Page