From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Francisco Reyes" <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>, "Marc Cousin" <mcousin(at)sigma(dot)fr> |
Cc: | "Chris" <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Pgsql performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Inserts optimization? |
Date: | 2006-04-18 11:56:44 |
Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA352AE@algol.sollentuna.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> > For now, I only could get good performance with bacula and
> postgresql
> > when disabling fsync...
>
>
> Isn't that less safe?
Most definitly.
FWIW, I'm getting pretty good speeds with Bacula and PostgreSQL on a
reasonably small db (file table about 40 million rows, filename about
5.2 million and path 1.5 million).
Config changes are increasing shared mem and work mems, fsm pages,
wal_sync_method=fdatasync, wal_buffers=16, checkpoint_segments=8,
default_with_oids=off (before creating the bacula tables, so they don't
use oids).
Used to run with full_pages_writes=off, but not anymore since it's not
safe.
> Also planning to check commit_delay and see if that helps.
> I will try to avoid 2 or more machines backing up at the same
> time.. plus in a couple of weeks I should have a better
> machine for the DB anyways..
Bacula already serializes access to the database (they have to support
mysql/myisam), so this shouldn't help. Actually, it might well hurt by
introducing extra delays.
> I only wonder what is safer.. using a second or two in
> commit_delay or using
> fsync = off.. Anyone cares to comment?
Absolutely a commit_delay.
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mario Splivalo | 2006-04-18 13:08:39 | SELECT FOR UPDATE performance is bad |
Previous Message | Markus Schaber | 2006-04-18 10:51:59 | Re: merge>hash>loop |