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
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 |