> We had low resource utilization and poor throughput on inserts of
> thousands of rows within a single database transaction.  There were a
> lot of configuration parameters we changed, but the one which helped the
> most was wal_buffers -- we wound up setting it to 1000.  This may be
> higher than it needs to be, but when we got to something which ran well,
> we stopped tinkering.  The default value clearly caused a bottleneck.

I just tried wal_buffers = 1000, sort_mem at 10% and
effective_cache_size at 75%.
The performance refuses to budge.. I guess that's as good as it'll go?

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to