Message-ID: <4C180A3B.7090905@agliodbs.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:18:19 -0700
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090223 Thunderbird/3.0b2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
References: <cb0fb58c-9134-4314-a1d0-08fc39f911a6@40g2000pry.googlegroups.com>
	<87bpbcpabg.fsf@cbbrowne-laptop.afilias-int.info>
	<4C17A417.2040600@noao.edu>
	<87ocfcnqmk.fsf@cbbrowne-laptop.afilias-int.info>
In-Reply-To: <87ocfcnqmk.fsf@cbbrowne-laptop.afilias-int.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/15/10 10:37 AM, Chris Browne wrote:
> swampler@noao.edu (Steve Wampler) writes:
>> Or does losing WAL files mandate a new initdb?
> 
> Losing WAL would mandate initdb, so I'd think this all fits into the
> set of stuff worth putting onto ramfs/tmpfs.  Certainly it'll all be
> significant to the performance focus.

I'd like to see some figures about WAL on RAMfs vs. simply turning off
fsync and full_page_writes.  Per Gavin's tests, PostgreSQL is already
close to TokyoCabinet/MongoDB performance just with those turned off; I
wonder if actually having the WAL on a memory partition would make any
real difference in throughput.

I've seen a lot of call for this recently, especially since PostgreSQL
seems to be increasingly in use as a reporting server for Hadoop.  Might
be worth experimenting with just making wal writing a no-op.  We'd also
want to disable checkpointing, of course.

-- 
                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                     http://www.pgexperts.com