From: | Alexy Khrabrov <deliverable(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: two memory-consuming postgres processes |
Date: | 2008-05-02 20:28:42 |
Message-ID: | D86DA06B-3E61-48A5-8812-8699B2892922@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On May 2, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008, Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
>
>> I have an UPDATE query updating a 100 million row table, and
>> allocate enough memory via shared_buffers=1500MB.
>
> In addition to reducing that as you've been advised, you'll probably
> need to increase checkpoint_segments significantly from the default
> (3) in order to get good performance on an update that large.
> Something like 30 would be a reasonable starting point.
>
> I'd suggest doing those two things, seeing how things go, and
> reporting back if you still think performance is unacceptable. We'd
> need to know your PostgreSQL version in order to really target
> future suggestions.
PostgreSQL 8.3.1, compiled from source on Mac OSX 10.5.2 (Leopard).
Saw the checkpoint_segments warning every ~20sec and increased it to
100 already. Will see what 512 MB buys me, but 128 MB was paging
miserably.
Cheers,
Alexy
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexy Khrabrov | 2008-05-02 20:35:32 | Re: two memory-consuming postgres processes |
Previous Message | Alexy Khrabrov | 2008-05-02 20:26:47 | Re: two memory-consuming postgres processes |