Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
This value of wal_buffers is simply ridiculous.
Instead I think is ridiculous a wal_buffers = 8 ( 64KB ) by default.
There is no point making WAL buffers higher than 8. I have done much
testing of this and it makes not the slightest difference to performance
that
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 8/3/2004 2:05 PM, Martin Foster wrote:
I run a Perl/CGI driven website that makes extensive use of PostgreSQL
(7.4.3) for everything from user information to formatting and display
of specific sections of the site. The server itself, is a dual
processor AMD Opteron 1.4Ghz w
On 8/3/2004 2:05 PM, Martin Foster wrote:
I run a Perl/CGI driven website that makes extensive use of PostgreSQL
(7.4.3) for everything from user information to formatting and display
of specific sections of the site. The server itself, is a dual
processor AMD Opteron 1.4Ghz w/ 2GB Ram and 2 x
This value of wal_buffers is simply ridiculous.
Instead I think is ridiculous a wal_buffers = 8 ( 64KB ) by default.
There is no point making WAL buffers higher than 8. I have done much
testing of this and it makes not the slightest difference to performance
that I could measure.
Chris
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Martin Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
change this values in:
shared_buffers = 5
sort_mem = 16084
wal_buffers = 1500
This value of wal_buffers is simply ridiculous.
Instead I think is ridiculous a wal_buffers = 8 ( 64KB ) by default.
There isn't any re
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 22:02, Martin Foster wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 17:24, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Martin Foster wrote:
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Let start from your postgres configuration:
shared_buffers = 8192< This is really too small for you
