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
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? |