Re: [HACKERS] Let's drop some GUCs (bgwriter)

2005-08-23 Thread Josh Berkus
Jim, > But have you looked at how this affects response time, especially around > checkpoints? Testing I've done shows that changing the variables in > 8.0.3 can markedly reduce the impact of checkpoints. In many > applications, maintaining low response times is more important than > overall throu

Re: [HACKERS] Let's drop some GUCs (bgwriter)

2005-08-22 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus writes: > I find the addition a little baffling, since previous tests ... both mine, > and discussion of tests last December ... showed that manipulating the > bgwriter variables had no useful effects, and one might as well leave them > alone. Perhaps that just proves that you're u

Re: [HACKERS] Let's drop some GUCs (bgwriter)

2005-08-22 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:56:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > First off, I was going through PostgreSQL.conf.sample, and noticed that the > bgwriter GUCs had multiplied: > > #bgwriter_delay = 200 # 10-1 milliseconds between rounds > #bgwriter_lru_percent = 1.0 # 0-1

[HACKERS] Let's drop some GUCs (bgwriter)

2005-08-22 Thread Josh Berkus
Folks, First off, I was going through PostgreSQL.conf.sample, and noticed that the bgwriter GUCs had multiplied: #bgwriter_delay = 200 # 10-1 milliseconds between rounds #bgwriter_lru_percent = 1.0 # 0-100% of LRU buffers scanned in each round #bgwriter_lru_maxpages = 5 #