Re: XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Mark Wong" <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table
Date: 2006-05-02 15:00:58
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA579FC3989@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> I'm planning on continuing to increase XLOG_BLCKSZ and wal_buffers to
> determine when the throughput starts to level out or drop

I think for an even better comparison you should scale wal_buffers
down with increasing XLOG_BLCKSZ, so that the xlog buffer has a fixed
size in kb.

Reasonable wal_buffers imho amount to at least 256kb, better yet 512 or
1 Mb,
with sufficiently large transactions (and to try to factor out the
difference
between blocksizes).

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-05-02 15:49:57 Re: Automatic free space map filling
Previous Message letizia leo 2006-05-02 14:31:14 Rome university