Re: [PERFORM] pgsql inserts problem

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: Tarhon-Onu Victor <mituc(at)iasi(dot)rdsnet(dot)ro>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] pgsql inserts problem
Date: 2003-08-28 12:56:49
Message-ID: 200308281356.49450.dev@archonet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-performance

On Wednesday 27 August 2003 13:50, Tarhon-Onu Victor wrote:
>
> shared_buffers = 520
> max_locks_per_transaction = 128
> wal_buffers = 8
> max_fsm_relations = 30000
> max_fsm_pages = 482000
> sort_mem = 131072
> vacuum_mem = 131072
> effective_cache_size = 10000
> random_page_cost = 2

Slightly off-topic, but I think your tuning settings are a bit out. You've got
4MB allocated to shared_buffers but 128MB allocated to sort_mem? And only
80MB to effective_cache_size? Your settings might be right, but you'd need a
very strange set of circumstances.

As for PG silently discarding inserts, your best bet might be to write a short
Perl script to reproduce the problem. Without that, people are likely to be
sceptical - if PG tended to do this sort of thing, none of us would use it.

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Wenguang Wang 2003-08-28 16:31:05 Suggestion on documentation
Previous Message pgsql-bugs 2003-08-28 07:45:34 "Returned due to virus; was:" Re: Re: My details

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2003-08-28 13:44:18 Re: The results of my PostgreSQL/filesystem performance tests
Previous Message Jeff 2003-08-28 12:25:18 Re: The results of my PostgreSQL/filesystem performance