Re: Interpreting vmstat

From: Thom Dyson <TDyson(at)sybex(dot)com>
To: Doug Y <dylists(at)ptd(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Interpreting vmstat
Date: 2004-05-20 16:00:22
Message-ID: OF548594A5.D2D24DD0-ON88256E9A.00575B92-88256E9A.0057ED01@sybex.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Well,

Since I haven't seen any other responds, I'll offer a bit of advice and let
others correct me. :)

Your shared buffers may be too big (?). It is much larger than the guide
on varlena.com recommends. All I can suggest is trying some experiments
with halving/doubling the numbers to see which way performance goes. Also,
if you are counting on cache to improve performance, then the db has to be
loaded into cache the first time. So, are subsequent re-queries faster?

Thom Dyson
Director of Information Services
Sybex, Inc.

pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org wrote on 05/18/2004 11:12:14 AM:

> Hello,
> (note best viewed in fixed-width font)
>
> I'm still trying to find where my performance bottle neck is...
> I have 4G ram, PG 7.3.4
> shared_buffers = 75000
> effective_cache_size = 75000

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joseph Shraibman 2004-05-20 16:52:13 Re: PostgreSQL performance in simple queries
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-05-20 15:56:55 Re: PostgreSQL performance in simple queries