From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | tsuraan <tsuraan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Scaling concerns |
Date: | 2006-12-18 04:59:12 |
Message-ID: | 21940.1166417952@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
tsuraan <tsuraan(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Is the WAL at the same location as the xlog (transaction log?)?
Same thing.
> The checkpoint_segments doc says increasing that value is really only
> useful if the xlog is separate from the data,
Dunno where you read that, but it's utter bilge. If you've got a
write-intensive workload, you want to crank checkpoint_segments as high
as you can stand. With the default settings on a modern machine it's
not hard at all to push it into checkpointing every dozen or seconds,
which will completely kill performance. (Disk space for pg_xlog/ and
potential delay during crash restart are the only negatives here. If
you are willing to push the average inter-checkpoint interval past five
minutes then you need to increase checkpoint_timeout too.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adam Rich | 2006-12-18 06:07:46 | Optimizing timestamp queries? Inefficient Overlaps? |
Previous Message | tsuraan | 2006-12-18 04:36:50 | Re: Scaling concerns |