[PERFORM] Disable WAL completely

2008-02-18 Thread Kathirvel, Jeevanandam
Hi, I want to disable Write Ahead Log (WAL) completely because of following reasons, 1. I am running Linux on the Compact Flash, which has limited memory; I can't afford disk space of 32MB for pg_xlog folder. ( checkpoints_segments = 1) 2. CF has own limitation with r

Re: [PERFORM] Disable WAL completely

2008-02-18 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 02:41:50PM +0530, Kathirvel, Jeevanandam wrote: > I want to disable Write Ahead Log (WAL) completely because > of following reasons, basically, you can't disable it. regards, depesz -- quicksil1er: "postgres is excellent, but like any DB it requires a highly

Re: [PERFORM] Disable WAL completely

2008-02-18 Thread Kathirvel, Jeevanandam
Hi Depesz, Is there way to minimize the I/O operation on disk/CF. Can I create RAM file system and point the pg_xlog files to RAM location instead of CF. whether this will work? Regards, Jeeva -Original Message- From: hubert depesz lubaczewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PERFORM] Disable WAL completely

2008-02-18 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:00:47PM +0530, Kathirvel, Jeevanandam wrote: > Is there way to minimize the I/O operation on disk/CF. > Can I create RAM file system and point the pg_xlog files to RAM > location instead of CF. whether this will work? it will, but in case you'll lost power y

Re: [PERFORM] Disable WAL completely

2008-02-18 Thread A. Kretschmer
am Mon, dem 18.02.2008, um 14:41:50 +0530 mailte Kathirvel, Jeevanandam folgendes: > Hi, > > I want to disable Write Ahead Log (WAL) completely because of > > > Please give your inputs, to resolve this issue.. Change the destination for this log to /dev/null Andreas -- Andrea

Re: [PERFORM] Disable WAL completely

2008-02-18 Thread Erik Jones
On Feb 18, 2008, at 3:32 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:00:47PM +0530, Kathirvel, Jeevanandam wrote: Is there way to minimize the I/O operation on disk/CF. Can I create RAM file system and point the pg_xlog files to RAM location instead of CF.

[PERFORM] Controling where temporary files are created

2008-02-18 Thread Nikolas Everett
Is there a way I can change where postgres writes it temporary files? My data directory is on a slow array, but we also have a fast array. I'm looking to get all the temp file creation onto the fast array.

Re: [PERFORM] Controling where temporary files are created

2008-02-18 Thread Albert Cervera Areny
Since 8.3 there's temp_tablespaces configuration parameter. A Dilluns 18 Febrer 2008 16:27, Nikolas Everett va escriure: > Is there a way I can change where postgres writes it temporary files? My > data directory is on a slow array, but we also have a fast array. I'm > looking to get all the tem

Re: [PERFORM] Disable WAL completely

2008-02-18 Thread Tobias Brox
[Erik Jones] > Right. Without the xlog directory you'll have very little chance of > ever doing any kind of clean stop/start of your database. If you > don't need the reliability offered by Postgres's use of transaction > logs you'll probably be much better served with a different database

Re: [PERFORM] mis-estimate in nested query causes slow runtimes

2008-02-18 Thread Chris Kratz
On 2/11/08, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chris Kratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The first frustration is that I can't get the transaction details scan > > to get any more accurate. It thinks it will find 1407 records, > > instead it finds 20,153. Then for whatever reason it thinks

Re: [PERFORM] Anyone using a SAN?

2008-02-18 Thread Peter Koczan
> That's true about SANs in general. You don't buy a SAN because it'll > cost less than just buying the disks and a controller. You buy a SAN > because it'll let you make managing it easier. The break-even point has > more to do with how many servers you're able to put on the SAN and how > often yo

Re: [PERFORM] shared_buffers in 8.3 w/ lots of RAM on dedicated PG machine

2008-02-18 Thread Greg Smith
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Peter Schuller wrote: Am I interpreting that correctly in that dirty buffers need to be flushed to disk at checkpoints? That makes perfect sense - but why would that not be the case with OS buffers? All the dirty buffers in the cache are written out as part of the checkp