X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A495B11F6228 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:59:41 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fzOF+NeRM0Bl for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:59:24 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7318C11F610C for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:59:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (localhost.natserv.net [127.0.0.1]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5DF1B81F; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 35st-server.simplicato.com (static-71-249-233-130.nycmny.east.verizon.net [71.249.233.130]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C149B81D; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:59:24 -0400 (EDT) References: <443DA715.4060606@gmail.com> <9549.1144903344@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/ From: Francisco Reyes To: Tom Lane Cc: Chris , Pgsql performance Subject: Re: Inserts optimization? Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:59:23 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Archive-Number: 200604/313 X-Sequence-Number: 18397 Tom Lane writes: > Or at least try to do multiple inserts per transaction. Will see if the program has an option like that. > Also, increasing checkpoint_segments and possibly wal_buffers helps a Will try those. >Try to get the WAL onto a separate disk >spindle if you can. (These things don't matter for SELECTs, but they >do matter for writes.) This particular server is pretty much what I inherited for now for this project.and its Raid 5. There is a new server I am setting up soon... 8 disks which we are planning to setup 6 disks in RAID 10 2 Hot spares In RAID 10 would it matter that WALL is in the same RAID set? Would it be better: 4 disks in RAID10 Data 2 disks RAID 1 WALL 2 hot spares All in the same RAID controller