| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | thomas veymont <thomas(dot)veymont(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: low perfomances migrating from 9.3 to 9.5 |
| Date: | 2016-07-27 12:11:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS0BU-3kwXB72p+1-jsXFbUApKgY2FqLcn6r6mNXHmNxw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:22 PM, thomas veymont
<thomas(dot)veymont(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> as far as I remember these settings were for faster bulk loading.
>
> in 9.5 we set:
> max_wal_size = 6GB #
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/release-9-5.html, max_wal_size =
> (3 * checkpoint_segments) * 16MB
> #min_wal_size = 80MB
>
> though I tried max_wal_size = 3GB (default is 1GB) and did not notice any
> improvment.
And do you see changes if you increase min_wal_size? This will
increase the number of WAL segments recycled instead of removed at
each checkpoint.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Artur Zakirov | 2016-07-27 12:56:04 | Re: FTS with more than one language in body and with unknown query language? |
| Previous Message | Jerome Wagner | 2016-07-27 10:16:29 | Re: question on parsing postgres sql queries |