Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Date
Msg-id 4003.1045196624@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers  ("Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
List pgsql-performance
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> What I mean is say you have an enterprise server doing heaps of transactions
> with lots of work.  If you have scads of RAM, could you just shove up
> wal_buffers really high and assume it will improve performance?

There is no such thing as infinite RAM (or if there is, you paid *way*
too much for your database server).  My feeling is that it's a bad
idea to put more than you absolutely have to into single-use buffers.
Multi-purpose buffers are usually a better use of RAM.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: JBoss CMP Performance Problems with PostgreSQL 7.2.3
Next
From: Kevin Brown
Date:
Subject: Tuning scenarios (was Changing the default configuration)