Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
От | Marti Raudsepp |
---|---|
Тема | Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTinCtnctB-OuqEg_dv=JBcpJFvzyvWuf83qHfGEa@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 00:34, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > I think we can be more specific on that last sentence; is there even any > *theoretical* benefit to settings above 16MB, the size of a WAL segment? > Certainly there have been no test results to show any. I don't know if it's applicable to real workloads in any way, but it did make a measurable difference in one of my tests. Back when benchmarking different wal_sync_methods, I found that when doing massive INSERTs from generate_series, the INSERT time kept improving even after increasing wal_buffers from 16MB to 32, 64 and 128MB; especially with wal_sync_method=open_datasync. The total INSERT+COMMIT time remained constant, however. More details here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-11/msg00094.php Regards, Marti
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: