Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dan Armbrust <daniel(dot)armbrust(dot)list(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question
Date: 2009-07-08 18:44:43
Message-ID: 25426.1247078683@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Dan Armbrust <daniel(dot)armbrust(dot)list(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Well, you could increase both those settings so as to put the
>> checkpoints further apart, and/or increase checkpoint_completion_target
>> to spread the checkpoint I/O over a larger fraction of the cycle.

> Wouldn't increasing the length between checkpoints result in the
> checkpoint process taking even longer to complete?

You don't really care how long it takes. What you want is for it not to
be chewing a bigger fraction of your I/O bandwidth than you can spare.
Hence, you want it to take longer. Trying to shorten it is just going
to make the spike worse.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-07-08 18:45:42 Re: now() + '4d' AT TIME ZONE issue
Previous Message Chris Spotts 2009-07-08 18:41:46 Re: now() + '4d' AT TIME ZONE issue