Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance

From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
Date: 2006-03-21 12:48:43
Message-ID: 20060321124841.GZ15140@mathom.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 06:01:58AM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:18PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> For the record, that's the wrong way round. For the data partitioning
>> metadata journaling is enough, and for the WAL partition you don't need any
>> FS journaling at all.
>
>Are you sure?

Yes. :) You actually shouldn't need metadata journaling in either
case--fsck will do the same thing. But fsck can take a *very* long time
on a large paritition, so for your data partition the journaling fs is a
big win. But your wal partition isn't likely to have very many files
and should fsck in a snap, and data consistency is taken care of by
synchronous operations. (Which is the reason you really don't need/want
data journalling.)

Mike Stone

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Cottenceau 2006-03-21 13:03:19 Re: planner with index scan cost way off actual cost,
Previous Message Edoardo Serra 2006-03-21 12:46:16 Postmaster using only 4-5% CPU