Re: Performance Bottleneck

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance Bottleneck
Date: 2004-08-07 10:49:50
Message-ID: 4114B3CE.2020504@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

>> This value of wal_buffers is simply ridiculous.
>
>
> Instead I think is ridiculous a wal_buffers = 8 ( 64KB ) by default.

There is no point making WAL buffers higher than 8. I have done much
testing of this and it makes not the slightest difference to performance
that I could measure.

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2004-08-07 14:21:00 Re: Performance Bottleneck
Previous Message Gaetano Mendola 2004-08-07 10:11:09 Re: Performance Bottleneck