| From: | Martin Foster <martin(at)ethereal-realms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance Bottleneck |
| Date: | 2004-08-08 05:14:32 |
| Message-ID: | YEiRc.48682$yT2.47522@clgrps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>> 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
>
No point? I had it at 64 if memory serves and logs were warning me that
raising this value would be desired because of excessive IO brought upon
from the logs being filled far too often.
It would seem to me that 8 is a bit low in at least a few circumstances.
Martin Foster
Creator/Designer Ethereal Realms
martin(at)ethereal-realms(dot)org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin Foster | 2004-08-08 05:29:16 | Re: Performance Bottleneck |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-08-07 14:21:00 | Re: Performance Bottleneck |