Greg,
> You have wal_buffer set to 2048? That's pretty radical compared to the
> default of just 5. Your tests shows you had to go to this large a value
> to see the maximum effect?
No, take a look at the graph. It looks like we got the maximum effect
from a wal_buffers somewhere between 64 an
Josh Berkus writes:
> Folks,
>
> I ran a wal_buffer test series. It appears that increasing the
> wal_buffers is indeed very important for OLTP applications, potentially
> resulting in as much as a 15% average increase in transaction processing.
> What's interesting is that this is not jus
> I ran a wal_buffer test series. It appears that increasing the
> wal_buffers is indeed very important for OLTP applications,
> potentially resulting in as much as a 15% average increase in
> transaction processing.
> What's interesting is that this is not just true for 8.1, it's true
for
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 13:30 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I ran a wal_buffer test series. It appears that increasing the
> wal_buffers is indeed very important for OLTP applications, potentially
> resulting in as much as a 15% average increase in transaction processing.
> What's interesting is
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:30:01 -0700
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I ran a wal_buffer test series. It appears that increasing the
> wal_buffers is indeed very important for OLTP applications, potentially
> resulting in as much as a 15% average increase in transaction processing.
> What's i
