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