| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Date: | 2013-06-07 19:17:43 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaRrkh0yvNoFPbee1GXzh3p-142yxMrmuc0PoHX3cicww@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> Some findings were unsurprising, like that a direct connection
> between the servers using a cross-wired network patch cable was
> faster than plugging both machines into the same switch. But we
> tested all of our assumptions, and re-tested the surprising ones.
> One such surprise was that the conversion ran faster, even on a
> "largish" database of around 200GB, with 3 checkpoint_segments than
> with larger settings.
!
I can't account for that finding, because my experience is that small
checkpoint_segments settings lead to *terrible* bulk restore
performance.
*scratches head*
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-06-07 19:23:31 | Re: Parallell Optimizer |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-06-07 19:17:13 | Re: Bad error message on valuntil |