> I don't think this is based on a useful test for wal_buffers.  The
> wal_buffers setting only has to be large enough for the maximum amount
> of WAL log data that your system emits between commits, because a commit
> (from anyone) is going to flush the WAL data to disk (for everyone).
> So a benchmark based on short transactions is just not going to show
> any benefit to increasing the setting.

Yes, I guess the TPC-B test does many, very short transactions.  Each
transaction bascially comprises a single update, so I guess it wouldn't
really test it.

> > One proof that has come out of this is that wal_buffers does not affect
> > SELECT only performance in any way.
> Coulda told you that without testing ;-).  Read-only transactions emit
> no WAL entries.

I knew that as well, that's why I said "proof" ;)


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to