Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8062C2E02E0 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:14:56 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03568-07 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:14:50 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F772E017B for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:14:50 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m23GEnGQ067117 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:14:49 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m23G43QF035673 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:04:03 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news) From: Chris Browne X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: which is more important? freq of checkpoints or the duration of them? Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:55:33 +0000 Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc Lines: 34 Message-ID: <60y78zajka.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> References: <200803030925.02931.doug@hunley.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) XEmacs/21.4.21 (linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Scy6+Z4NKlVQwP+5KVf465WkPq8= To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/33 X-Sequence-Number: 28987 doug@hunley.homeip.net (Douglas J Hunley) writes: > Subject about says it all. Should I be more concerned about checkpoints > happening 'frequently' or lasting 'longer'? In other words, is it ok to > checkpoint say, every 5 minutes, if it only last a second or three or better > to have checkpoints every 10 minutes that last half a minute? Stupid examples > probably, but you get my point I hope :) Well, with the (new-in-8.1) background writer, you should be able to have whatever combination might appear attractive, as the point of the background writer is to push out dirty pages. Pre-8.1, your choice would be either to: a) Flush frequently, and so have the checkpoints be of short duration, or b) Flush infrequently, so that the checkpoint flushes would have a long duration. Now, if you have reasonable settings (I'm not sure how well its tuning is documented :-(), checkpoint "flushes" should be able to be short, however infrequent they may be. In effect, the "oops, the database got blocked by checkpoint flushing" issue should now be gone... The issue that then remains is whether to checkpoint often, in which case crash recovery will tend to be be quicker, or whether to checkpoint seldom, in which case crash recovery will have fewer checkpoints to choose from, and hence will run somewhat longer. If your systems don't crash much, and recovery time isn't a big deal, then this probably doesn't much matter... -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.sesabatadxunil" "@" "enworbbc")) http://linuxfinances.info/info/sap.html "I don't plan to maintain it, just to install it." -- Richard M. Stallman