Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3B9B5DC2D for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:21:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10963-05 for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 19:21:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.gransy.com (mail.gransy.com [82.208.29.194]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2FFB5D8BD for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:21:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gransy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9519B36858F for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 21:21:33 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at nathalia.gransy.com Received: from mail.gransy.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Nathalka.gransy.com.gransy.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EzRCVH+R7MOI for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 21:21:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.221] (ip-94-112-0-189.net.upcbroadband.cz [94.112.0.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.gransy.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23718368590 for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 21:17:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4DDAB2CD.2050104@fuzzy.cz> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 21:17:33 +0200 From: Tomas Vondra User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101219 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance degradation of inserts when database size grows References: <4DDA617A.6090105@peak6.com> <4DDAAB8F.5030508@fuzzy.cz> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201105/311 X-Sequence-Number: 43820 Dne 23.5.2011 21:05, Robert Haas napsal(a): > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> Really? He already has 64 checkpoint segments, which is about 1GB of >> xlog data. The real problem is that the amount of buffers to write is >> constantly growing. At the beginning there's 62861 buffers (500MB) and >> at the end there's 137657 buffers (1GB). >> >> IMHO increasing the number of checkpoint segments would make this >> disruption even worse. > > Maybe - but it would also make the checkpoints less frequent, which > might be a good thing. > >> In 9.1 there's a feature that spreads checkpoint writes, but with 8.4 >> that's not possible. > > What feature are you referring to here? Checkpoint spreading was > added in 8.3, IIRC. You're absolutely right, I was talking about checkpoint_completion_target and it was added in 8.3. Your memory is obviously better than mine. Tomas