Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen
От
Mark Kirkwood
Тема
Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen
Дата
Msg-id
54DD32F6.6010100@catalyst.net.nz
Ответ на
Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen (Gudmundsson Martin (mg))
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen Luis Antonio Dias de Sá Junior <luisjunior.sa@gmail.com>
Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>
Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen "Graeme B. Bell" <grb@skogoglandskap.no>
Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen Luis Antonio Dias de Sá Junior <luisjunior.sa@gmail.com>
Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen "Gudmundsson Martin (mg)" <martin.mg.gudmundsson@volvo.com>
Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen Luis Antonio Dias de Sá Junior <luisjunior.sa@gmail.com>
Re: Survey: Max TPS you've ever seen "Graeme B. Bell" <grb@skogoglandskap.no>
On 13/02/15 00:20, Gudmundsson Martin (mg) wrote: > Hi all! > >> - checkpoint_segments 1000 >> - checkpoint_completion_target 0.9 >> - wal_buffers 256MB >> - shared_buffers 31 gb >> - max_connections 500 > > I see that some of you are using wal_buffers = 256MB. > I was under the impression that Postgres will not benefit from higher value than the segment size, i.e. 16MB. More than that will not do/help anything. > > What's the reasoning behind setting it to higher than 16MB? Do I have old information? > > Best regards, Martin > There was some discussion a while ago in which 32MB and 8MB both demonstrated better performance than 16MB (probably related to the fact the the default wal file size is 16MB). We just experimented further with bigger values, and saw some improvement. Cheers Mark
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления