I have not explained well what I have in my mind in first message.
Main goal is more buffers to stay dirty in memory for longer time. So
checkpoint segments have to be 2, 3... times than in current approach. And
separate parameter can control how much buffers to write at once. DBA can
tune:
- chec
2011/7/29 Greg Smith :
> 1) Postponing writes as long as possible always improves the resulting
> throughput of those writes. Any incremental checkpoint approach will detune
> throughput by some amount. If you make writes go out more often, they will
> be less efficient; that's just how things wo
> If you make writes go out more often, they will be less efficient
I think fsync is more important. But many writes + fsync is no good too.
Let suppose that 30 WAL segments are good for performance (to be written
at once). In incremental approach we can have 60 segments and we can write
30 at onc
On 07/29/2011 11:04 AM, jord...@go-link.net wrote:
I think that current implementation of checkpoints is not good for huge
shared buffer cache and for many WAL segments. If there is more buffers
and if buffers can be written rarely more updates of buffers can be
combined so total number of writes
