Since the commitlog/WAL is sequential-write, does it mattert that much to
put it in ssd ?(i understand that it matters to put it in separate
disk-subsystem so the write/read patterns don't interfere)
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 11:13:42AM +0200,
Tue, May 06, 2014 at 01:15:10PM +0200, Dorian Hoxha wrote:
>
>> Since the commitlog/WAL is sequential-write, does it mattert that much to
>> put
>> it in ssd
>>
>
> No, assuming a good storage system with nvram write buffer.
> Mike Stone
>
>
> --
> Sent vi
>
> Why do you even want to use JBOD?
>
Not for postgresql , but for distributed filesystems like hdfs/qfs (which
are supposed to work on JBOD) with hypertable on top (so the nvram would
help with the commits, since it is the biggest bottleneck when
writing(commits need to be saved to multiple ser
I think I've read that when auto-vacuum takes too long, run it more often.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 10/02/2014 07:43 AM, Rodrigo Barboza wrote:
>
>> Hello, I have a table that receives lots of updates and inserts.
>> Auto vaccum is always being cancelled on
This looks great when you want in-memory (something like unlogged tables)
and you also want replication. (meaning, I don't know of an alternative to
get replication with unlogged than to just get faster drives + logged
tables?)
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Graeme B. Bell
wrote:
>
> Images/dat
