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
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 |