Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles
От | Rob Wultsch |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTikSEKczPt-6txoL1GnQWw8Af9VZEsrsVpxhNb6i@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com> wrote: > >> has PG considered using a double write buffer similar to InnodB? > > That seems inferior to the full_page_writes strategy, where you only > write a page twice the first time it is written after a checkpoint. > We're talking about when we might be able to write *less*, not more. > > -Kevin > By "write" do you mean number of writes, or the number of bytes of the writes? For number of writes, yes a double write buffer will lose. In terms of number of bytes, I would think full_page_writes=off + double write buffer should be far superior, particularly given that the WAL is shipped over the network to slaves. -- Rob Wultsch wultsch@gmail.com
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: