Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question
| От | Greg Smith |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | alpine.GSO.2.01.0907081538290.14242@westnet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question (Dan Armbrust <daniel.armbrust.list@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Dan Armbrust wrote: > My takeaway is that starting the checkpoint process is really > expensive - so I don't want to start it very frequently. And the only > downside to longer intervals between checkpoints is a longer recovery > time if the system crashes? And additional disk space wasted in hold the write-ahead logs. You're moving in the right direction here, the less checkpoints the better as long as you can stand the recovery time. What you'll discover if you bump checkpoint_segments up high enough is that you have to lengthen the test run you're trying, because eventually you'll reach a point where there are none of them happening during some test runs. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: