Re: Buffer Cache question....
От | scott.marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Buffer Cache question.... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0304301508380.19726-100000@css120.ihs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Buffer Cache question.... (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Buffer Cache question....
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Medi Montaseri wrote: > > I am using PG 7.2 with fsync truned on but still need a more immediate > > write thru. > > Does PG uses the fsync (or open_sync, etc) just for the WAL or for > > tables as well ? > > Just for WAL. > > > I understand the consequence of limiting buffer cache but my application > > cares more about > > integrity than performance. I'd like to be able to write the data to the > > physical storage ASAP, > > or ideally 100% in sync mode. > > > > I have found that by reducing the checkpoint parameters I can write the > > data to disk sooner. > > For example > > > > checkpoint_segments = 1 > > checkpoint_timeout = 30 > > > > What else do I have to work with....? > > PostgreSQL is already 100% reliable (pull plug and see) so I don't see > any value to changing those parameters. What about commit_siblings and commit_delay? I haven't really played a lot with those. I would think increasing the commit delay and the number of siblings should give better, but slightly bursty performance.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: