Re: Sanity check requested

From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: "Pgsql-Performance(at)Postgresql(dot) Org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sanity check requested
Date: 2003-07-15 05:42:10
Message-ID: 3F13E18A.21241.4B86CB0@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 14 Jul 2003 at 12:51, Nick Fankhauser wrote:
> Any thoughts? Is this a sane plan? Are there other parameters I should
> consider changing first?

Well, everything seems to be in order and nothing much to suggest I guess. But
still..

1. 30 users does not seem to be much of a oevrhead. If possible try doing away
with connection pooling. Buta test benchmark run is highly recommended.

2. While increasing sort memory, try 4/8/16 in that order. That way you will
get a better picture of load behaviour. Though whatever you put appears
reasonable, having more data always help.

3. I don't know how this affects on SCSI drives, but what file system you are
using? Can you try diferent ones? Like reiserfs/ext3 and XFS? See what fits
your bill.

4. OK, this is too much but linux kernel 2.6 is in test and has vastly improved
IO scheduler. May be you should look at it if you are up to experimentation.

HTH

Bye
Shridhar

--
You're dead, Jim. -- McCoy, "The Tholian Web", stardate unknown

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message psql-mail 2003-07-15 15:59:31 Query Optimisation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-07-14 22:41:25 Re: optimizer picks smaller table to drive nested loops?