Re: XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jim C. Nasby
Тема Re: XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table
Дата
Msg-id 20060502170738.GX97354@pervasive.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table  ("Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 05:00:58PM +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD wrote:
> 
> > I'm planning on continuing to increase XLOG_BLCKSZ and wal_buffers to
> > determine when the throughput starts to level out or drop 
> 
> I think for an even better comparison you should scale wal_buffers
> down with increasing XLOG_BLCKSZ, so that the xlog buffer has a fixed
> size in kb.
> 
> Reasonable wal_buffers imho amount to at least 256kb, better yet 512 or
> 1 Mb,
> with sufficiently large transactions (and to try to factor out the
> difference 
> between blocksizes).

AFAIK all the transactions in DBT2 are pretty small. I think all DML is
single-row in fact, so I'm not sure that having wal_buffers much larger
than the number of connections would help much.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Jim C. Nasby"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?
Следующее
От: "Larry Rosenman"
Дата:
Сообщение: patch review, please: Autovacuum/Vacuum times via stats.