From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
Cc: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:20:38 -0400
Message-ID: <20060321212038.GD17121@surnet.cl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060320161133.03a0b5a8@earthlink.net>
References: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B088286@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com>
<1142973890.24487.510.camel@localhost.localdomain>
<7.0.1.0.2.20060320161133.03a0b5a8@earthlink.net>
Ron wrote:
> IIRC, Josh Berkus did some benches that suggests in pg 8.x a value of
> 64 - 256 is best for checkpoint_segments as long as you have the RAM
> available.
I think you are confusing checkpoint_segments with wal_buffers.
checkpoint_segments certainly has little to do with available RAM!
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
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: alvherre@commandprompt.com, rjpeace@earthlink.net, Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com
Subject: Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
In-Reply-To: <20060321212038.GD17121@surnet.cl>
* 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