From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christian Hammers <ch(at)lathspell(dot)de>, Greg Williamson <gwilliamson39(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Queries seldomly take >4s while normally take <1ms? |
Date: | 2013-04-09 14:25:16 |
Message-ID: | 1365517516.13209.YahooMailNeo@web162906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Christian Hammers <ch(at)lathspell(dot)de> wrote:
> 9.2.3
You really need to think about 9.2.4 Real Soon Now; there's a
security fix that you probably should not wait on.
> max_connections = 1000 # (change requires restart)
> shared_buffers = 20GB # min 128kB
Those are both potential causes. For max_connections, see this:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Number_Of_Database_Connections
Maybe you happened to have enough users hit the enter key at the
same moment to cause a process holding a lock to be starved of
cycles or something similar.
One problem with a large shared_buffers setting is that PostgreSQL
can accumulate a very large number of dirty pages and flush them to
the OS all at once. This can overwhelm the storage system and
cause exactly the kind of symptoms you're seeing.
> effective_cache_size is way too low, I noticed, can that be the cause?
Probably not.
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sébastien Lorion | 2013-04-09 14:34:13 | Re: optimizer's cost formulas |
Previous Message | Christoph Berg | 2013-04-09 12:44:12 | Re: postgresql command line exploit found in the wild |