Thu Nov 15 19:07:21 PST 2007
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Slony & High Volume Updates
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Slony & High Volume Updates
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeff Trout <threshar at torgo.978.org> writes: > I've run some of the queries that show up in explain, which seem to > be coming out sane. I'm just wondering if there is something I > should be looking into about speeding it up, or if I should > investigate something like log shipping. (I've got a master and 3 > slaves. 2 of the slaves can lag a bit, 1 of the slaves should be > about <=1s ) I don't think log shipping would help anything here, from two perspectives: 1. It still requires having a regular subscriber around; all it therefore buys you is the ability for *EXTRA* copies to be made more cheaply. 2. There shouldn't be anything about log shipping itself that would provide any extra efficiencies. > Should I look into perhaps seeing if those slow notify... queries > were trying to run at the same time as that log switch? If things are too slow, about the only thing that has been observed (I can't call it verified) that is argued to make a difference is to increase the number of tuples processed at a time. You *might* get a benefit by increasing the parameter "SLON_DATA_FETCH_SIZE", presently set to 10, in slon.h, to some moderately larger number. I would expect it to be a Bad Thing to increase it to >> 1000, as this would seem likely to make memory usage increase, with little concommittant potential for improvement. Assuming that fiddling with this *does* provide potential for improvement for heavy-update sites, I would expect increasing it to something like 50 to be the "conservative" approach... However, that assumes that this could be a fruitful improvement, which has yet to be verified... For the most part, if you are finding things "too slow," then I would be more inclined to point firstly at the ideas of: - Tune Thy Database and - If Thine Database Be Tuned, then Upgrade Thine Hardware. Performance of replication is mostly an emergent property falling from how heavily loaded your systems are, and whether they actually have the "bandwidth" free to cope with replication. There isn't any obvious "Go Faster" flag - if there were, we'd have either: a) Set it as a default, or b) Noticed that it was a significant config parameter worth fiddling with. -- (format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org") http://cbbrowne.com/info/spiritual.html "There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face." -- Ben Williams
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Slony & High Volume Updates
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Slony & High Volume Updates
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-general mailing list