From: | Dan Armbrust <daniel(dot)armbrust(dot)list(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question |
Date: | 2009-07-08 19:14:55 |
Message-ID: | 82f04dc40907081214x5f3834f2y1deb2a11fa32f473@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>> 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
>
I bumped the segments up to 15, and the timeout up to 10 minutes, and
changed the completion target to .7.
What I observe now is that I get a short (1-2 second) period where I
get slow queries - I'm running about 30 queries in parallel at any
given time - it appears that all 30 queries get paused for a couple of
seconds at the moment that a checkpoint begins. However, after the
initial slowdown, I don't get any additional slow queries logged while
the checkpoint process runs.
My takeaway is that starting the checkpoint process is really
expensive - so I don't want to start it very frequently. And the only
downside to longer intervals between checkpoints is a longer recovery
time if the system crashes?
Thanks,
Dan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-07-08 19:22:14 | Re: PostgreSQL and Poker |
Previous Message | Madison Kelly | 2009-07-08 19:09:26 | Re: now() + '4d' AT TIME ZONE issue |