On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Greg Smith wrote:
If you're seeing <100TPS you should consider if it's because you're limited
by how fast WAL commits can make it to disk. If you really want good insert
performance, there is no substitute for getting a disk controller with a good
battery-backed cache to work around that. You could just put the WAL xlog
directory on a RAID-1 pair of disks to accelerate that, you don't have to
move the whole database to a new controller.
Hey, you *just* beat me to it.
Yes, that's quite right. My suggestion was to move the whole thing, but
Greg is correct - you only need to put the WAL on a cached disc system.
That'd be quite a bit cheaper, I'd imagine.
Another case of that small SSD drive being useful, I think.
Matthew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
