John Summerfield <summer@os2.ami.com.au> writes:
> I attempted to load data amounting to 21 mbytes into a table which has
> a unique key both otherwise doesn't have indexes.
> The WALs consumed 2.9 Gigabytes of disk (and doubtless would have taken
> more if there was more to be had).
That seems like a large growth factor. What is the exact schema
declaration of the table, and how are you measuring the "21 mbytes"?
The immediate problem should be fixed if you update to 7.1.3, but
I'm curious about the 100:1 WAL-size-to-data-size ratio that you're
reporting.
regards, tom lane