From: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Database performance |
Date: | 2016-09-06 19:18:14 |
Message-ID: | DE8450C7-CDF7-47D7-9726-E30304C4544D@blighty.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Pradeep <pgundala(at)avineonindia(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> max_connections = 100
>> shared_buffers = 512MB
>> effective_cache_size = 24GB
>> work_mem = 110100kB
>
> This is WAY too high for work_mem. Work_mem is how much memory a
> single sort can grab at once. Each query may run > 1 sort, and you
> could have 100 queries running at once.
>
> This setting is 110GB. That's about 109.9GB too high for safety. When
> things go wrong with this too big, they go very wrong, sending the
> machine into a swap storm from which it may not return.
It's an oddly spelled 110MB, which doesn't seem unreasonable.
>
> It's far more likely that you've just got poorly written queries. I'd
> make a post with explain analyze output etc. Here's a good resource
> for reporting slow queries:
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Slow_Query_Questions
+1
Cheers,
Steve
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2016-09-06 19:26:21 | Re: pgAdmin 4 records limit of 2000 |
Previous Message | Christian Convey | 2016-09-06 19:15:26 | Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres |