From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: guoping.zhang@nec.com.au
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Guoping Zhang (E-mail)" <guopingz@nstc.nec.com.au>
Subject: Re: how unsafe (or worst scenarios) when setting fsync OFF for postgresql
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:53:28 -0400
Message-ID: <11093.1146149608@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <003b01c669c4$34bbd7b0$74304c93@eddy>
References: <003b01c669c4$34bbd7b0$74304c93@eddy>
"Guoping Zhang" <guoping.zhang@nec.com.au> writes:
> Our application has a strict speed requirement for DB operation. Our tests
> show that it takes about 10secs for the operation when setting fsync off,
> but takes about 70 seconds when setting fsync ON (with other WAL related
> parametered tuned).
I can't believe that a properly tuned application would have an fsync
penalty that large. Are you performing that "operation" as several
thousand small transactions, or some such? Try grouping the operations
into one (or at most a few) transactions. Also, what wal_buffers and
wal_sync_method settings are you using, and have you experimented with
alternatives? What sort of platform is this on? What PG version?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, guoping.zhang@nec.com.au, guopingz@nstc.nec.com.au
Subject: Re: how unsafe (or worst scenarios) when setting fsync OFF for postgresql
In-Reply-To: <11093.1146149608@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox