From: | Martin Foster <martin(at)ethereal-realms(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance Bottleneck |
Date: | 2004-08-06 22:58:31 |
Message-ID: | 41140D17.7070101@ethereal-realms.org |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>
>
> Let start from your postgres configuration:
>
> shared_buffers = 8192 <==== This is really too small for your
> configuration
> sort_mem = 2048
>
> wal_buffers = 128 <==== This is really too small for your configuration
>
> effective_cache_size = 16000
>
> change this values in:
>
> shared_buffers = 50000
> sort_mem = 16084
>
> wal_buffers = 1500
>
> effective_cache_size = 32000
>
>
> to bump up the shm usage you have to configure your OS in order to be
> allowed to use that ammount of SHM.
>
> This are the numbers that I feel good for your HW, the second step now is
> analyze your queries
>
These changes have yielded some visible improvements, with load averages
rarely going over the anything noticeable. However, I do have a
question on the matter, why do these values seem to be far higher then
what a frequently pointed to document would indicate as necessary?
http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
I am simply curious, as this clearly shows that my understanding of
PostgreSQL is clearly lacking when it comes to tweaking for the hardware.
Martin Foster
Creator/Designer Ethereal Realms
martin(at)ethereal-realms(dot)org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-08-06 23:18:40 | Re: The black art of postgresql.conf tweaking |
Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-08-06 18:27:01 | Re: The black art of postgresql.conf tweaking |