Greg Stark wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > I don't see something that happens every five minutes as any kind of > > performance problem. I am not sure what Josh saw that made him want to > > increase that. > > I would have thought checkpoint_timeout would be something you would adjust > depending on whether you want even performance (set it low and live with > redundant i/o) or maximum throughput (set it high and live with i/o spikes and > performance dropouts). Does that make sense? > > I suspect the origin of this meme might be with those benchmark graphs that > were being posted here that had the checkpoint timeout set to 30m. That seems > to be a bogus setting that's just hiding some of the i/o by postponing it > until after the test ends.
Right, I can see shortening it before we had the trickle writer, but for lengthening it, I don't see you are going to get that much improved throughput. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
