From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "petchimuthu lingam" <spmlingam(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: waiting for harddisk |
Date: | 2008-03-25 01:13:28 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10803241813g43cab94dtb3438b6df55ec533@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:05 AM, petchimuthu lingam <spmlingam(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> i am using postgresql 8.1.8,
>
> Following configurations:
> shared_buffers = 5000
> work_mem = 65536
> maintenance_work_mem = 65536
> effective_cache_size = 16000
> random_page_cost = 0.1
That number, 0.1 is not logical. anything below 1.0 is generally a
bad idea, and means that you've got some other setting wrong.
> The cpu is waiting percentage goes upto 50%, and query result comes later,
>
> i am using normal select query ( select * from table_name ).
>
> table has more then 6 million records.
You need faster disks if you want sequential scans to go faster. Look
into a decent RAID controller (Areca, Escalade (forgot what they're
called now) or LSI) with battery backed cache. Run RAID-10 on it with
as many drives as you can afford to throw at the problem.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris | 2008-03-25 04:18:00 | Re: slow pg_connect() |
Previous Message | Miguel Arroz | 2008-03-24 23:45:38 | Re: Planning hot/live backups? |