Re: buffered logging

Buffered log is way faster!!!! the log. log buffer gets flushed when it is full or when a checkpoint occurs It depends how save you want to be; check the manual for it; there is a statement set buffered log; -- may have missspelled it.. which may or can be used with batch jobs who are doing a lot of writes. This requires that these batch jobs are restartable and if one or x commits are lost it can easyly pick up where it left of. this however requires a code change... or dono if 9.4 it has; in xps there is something called sysdbopen in there one could set buffered log for certain users/programs so unbuffered log and for those programs who can recover from lost commits set buffered log may be the best answer. This will give you also the opertunity to increase LOGBUF to whatever you like to get more benefit out of it. See you Superboer Enor P <enor_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2k08d8F15uu3jU1@uni-berlin.de>... > rkusenet wrote: > > > I have never used buffered logging. Has anyone used it. > > Has anyone benchmarked the performance gain over unbuffered > > logging (my choice always). > > Also what should be the ideal LOGBUFF value to ensure that > > the logical log buffer gets flushed within a reasonable > > period of time, say a minute. As I understand there is > > no command to force the flushing of logical log buffer > > to the disk,right? > > Am think if systme is very busy with update, can be 20 %. LOGBUF can be > small, am I done my test with only 32K and many insert. Did not change > LOGBUF even. > > Am think chekpoint will flush log buffer, so onmode -c will work?