From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bricklen <bricklen-rem(at)yahoo(dot)comz> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Help how to tune-up my Database |
Date: | 2004-05-10 20:23:20 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0405101422540.17288-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Sorry about that, I meant kbytes, not megs. My point being it's NOT
measured in 8k blocks, like a lot of other settings. sorry for the mixup.
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Bricklen wrote:
> scott.marlowe wrote:
> > sort_mem might do with a small bump, especially if you're only handling a
> > few connections at a time. Be careful, it's per sort, and measured in
> > megs, so it's easy for folks to set it too high and make their machine
> > start flushing too much kernel cache, which will slow down the other
> > backends that have to go to disk for data.
> <snip>
> http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/annotated_conf_e.html
> (under "Memory"), it says that sort_mem is set in KB. Is this document
> wrong (or outdated)?
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bricklen | 2004-05-10 20:37:22 | Re: Help how to tune-up my Database |
Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-05-10 19:59:12 | Re: Why queries takes too much time to execute? |