Re: Vacuums on large busy databases

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>
Cc: Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuums on large busy databases
Date: 2006-09-14 18:43:49
Message-ID: 470FED70-B3BA-4B6C-A6B1-DFD8882746B2@fastcrypt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Francisco
On 14-Sep-06, at 1:36 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote:

> Dave Cramer writes:
>
>> What is effective_cache set to ?
>
> Increasing this seems to have helped significantly a web app. Load
> times seem magnitudes faster.
>
> Increased it to effective_cache_size = 12288 # 96MB
>
> What is a reasonable number?
> I estimate I have at least 1 to 2 GB free of memory.
You are using 6G of memory for something else ?

effective cache should be set to 75% of free memory
>
> Don't want to get too carried away right now with too many
> changes.. because right now we have very few connections to that
> database (usually less than 10), but I expect it to go to a norm of
> 20+.. so need to make sure I won't make changes that will be a
> problem in that scenario.
>
> So far only see one setting that can be an issue: work_mem so have
> it set to only 32768.
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-09-14 18:49:43 Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
Previous Message Alan Hodgson 2006-09-14 18:36:03 Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected