> 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? http://archives.postgresql.org