On 01/19/10 14:36, fkater@googlemail.com wrote:
> Ivan Voras:
>
>> [I just skimmed this thread - did you increase the number of WAL logs to
>> something very large, like 128?]
>
> Yes, I tried even more.
>
> I will be writing data quite constantly in the real scenario
> later. So I wonder if increasing WAL logs will have a
> positive effect or not: AFAIK when I increase it, the
> duration after the max is hit will be longer then (which is
> not acceptable in my case).
>
> Could anyone confirm if I got it right?
It seems so - if you are writing constantly then you will probably get
lower but more long-term-stable performance from a smaller number of WAL
logs.