From: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Adam Manock <abmanock(at)planetcable(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU? |
Date: | 2001-07-11 20:50:52 |
Message-ID: | 3B4CBC2C.53E8187B@postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Adam,
There are a few links to benchmark-type things you might find useful at
:
http://techdocs.postgresql.org/oresources.php#benchmark
Hope they're useful.
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
Adam Manock wrote:
>
> >This is almost certainly a lousy idea. You do *not* want to chew up all
> >available memory for PG shared buffers; you should leave a good deal of
> >space for kernel-level disk buffers.
>
> I decided to start high on buffers because of Bruce's:
> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/docs/hw_performance/
> From that I get the impression that operations using kernel disk buffer
> cache are considerably more expensive than if the data was in shared
> buffer cache, and that increasing PG's memory usage until the system
> is almost using swap is The Right Thing To Do. Has anyone got real
> world test data to confirm or refute this??
> If not, then I am going to need to find or create a benchmarking program
> to load down PG against a fake multi-gigabyte "production" database.
> Or I could wait a week to see what RedHat does to tune their
> implementation of PG :-)
>
> Adam
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-07-11 21:12:00 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] Bug in createlang? |
Previous Message | Adam Manock | 2001-07-11 20:42:16 | Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU? |