On 26 Sep 2002 at 10:42, Tom Lane wrote: > Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If it's any help, when I was testing recently with WAL on a separate > > drive, the WAL logs were doing more read&writes per second than the main > > data drive. > > ... but way fewer seeks. For anything involving lots of updating > transactions (and certainly 5000 separate insertions per second would > qualify; can those be batched??), it should be a win to put WAL on its > own spindle, just to get locality of access to the WAL.
Probably they will be a single transcation. If possible we will bunch more of them together.. like 5 seconds of data pushed down in a single transaction but not sure it's possible.. This is bit like replication but from live oracle machine to postgres, from information I have. So there should be some chance of tuning there.. Bye Shridhar -- Langsam's Laws: (1) Everything depends. (2) Nothing is always. (3) Everything is sometimes. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
