Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen

From: "Gudmundsson Martin (mg)" <martin(dot)mg(dot)gudmundsson(at)volvo(dot)com>
To: Luis Antonio Dias de Sá Junior <luisjunior(dot)sa(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen
Date: 2015-02-12 11:20:23
Message-ID: 2E5766F28426E547AF0A2A870FAE630D32BAD8@SEGOTNC5182-N2.vcn.ds.volvo.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Hi all!

> - checkpoint_segments 1000
> - checkpoint_completion_target 0.9
> - wal_buffers  256MB
> - shared_buffers 31 gb
> - max_connections 500

I see that some of you are using wal_buffers = 256MB.
I was under the impression that Postgres will not benefit from higher value than the segment size, i.e. 16MB. More than that will not do/help anything.

What's the reasoning behind setting it to higher than 16MB? Do I have old information?

Best regards, Martin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Graeme B. Bell 2015-02-12 12:26:15 Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen
Previous Message Luis Antonio Dias de Sá Junior 2015-02-12 11:12:33 Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen