From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sim Zacks <sim(at)compulab(dot)co(dot)il> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: optimal memory |
Date: | 2010-08-03 20:17:02 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimm=Oe7+iLS2VMD2naXh5_NOTu9_QwozAzsmktA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Sim Zacks <sim(at)compulab(dot)co(dot)il> wrote:
>
>> So, about how big is your db? How many users are likely to be running
>> queries at once? How big of a chunk of data are those users likely to
>> each need for sorts etc?
>>
> The database is 400MB (using du on the base folder), I have 10 active
> users who run queries and functions that generally take less then 1
> second each to run.
Then a couple gigabytes should be enough to run it smoothly, assuming
that those queries aren't doing things that need 100s of megabytes for
sorting for each query. I'd start with a 2 or 3Gig VM, give 400 or so
to shared_buffers, and set work_mem to something like 8 or 16Meg and
see how it runs.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gerd Koenig | 2010-08-03 20:37:12 | problem with pg_standby |
Previous Message | Timothy Garnett | 2010-08-03 20:03:59 | When can postgresql use a partial (NOT NULL) index? Seems to depend on size of IN clause (even with enable seqscan = off) |