From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Andy Dale" <andy(dot)dale(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Server Configuration |
Date: | 2008-05-21 06:17:47 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10805202317i30976ee7x41e98e24a88a5b4a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Then you should set it to 100 or so. It helps to keep the number of
connections down to something reasonable.
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Andy Dale <andy(dot)dale(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I currently have max_connections set to 300, however if i think about it we
> will never have that many connections (more like 50 - 100 at most).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
> 2008/5/20 Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>
>> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Andy Dale <andy(dot)dale(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I am currently trying to tweak Postgresql 8.1, to improve the overall
>> > performance of the database. I have read over the following
>> > page/artical
>> > http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList/, however at the moment (not for
>> > much longer hopefully) my hands aree tied when it comes to altering the
>> > kernel parameters, and thus allocating more shared buffers.
>> >
>> > I have read over the rest of the artical and adjusted some of the other
>> > values mentioned. The values I have altered are:
>> >
>> > work_mem = 33554 # min 64, size in KB
>>
>> Depending on how many connections you're handling and how much memory
>> you have, this might be a little large, but it's not terrible. Make
>> sure you aren't running your machine low on spare memory, as this can
>> cause the machine to start swapping and make it run slower.
>>
>> > maintenance_work_mem = 33554 # min 1024, size in KB
>> > max_fsm_pages = 100000 # min max_fsm_relations*16, 6
>> > bytes
>> > each
>> >
>> > vacuum_cost_delay = 50 # 0-1000 milliseconds
>>
>> Maybe a little high. most people find that 10 is just fine to keep
>> vacuum from slamming your I/O bandwidth.
>>
>> > wal_buffers = 64 # min 4, 8KB each
>> > commit_delay = 0 # range 0-100000, in
>> > microseconds
>> > commit_siblings = 50 # range 1-1000
>>
>> Setting a short commit delay may allow for more siblings to get
>> committed together.
>>
>> > effective_cache_size = 33333000 # typically 8KB each
>> >
>> > autovacuum = on # enable autovacuum
>> > subprocess?
>> > autovacuum_naptime = 30 # time between autovacuum runs, in
>> > secs
>> > autovacuum_vacuum_threshold = 400 # min # of tuple updates before
>> > vacuum
>> > autovacuum_analyze_threshold = 100 # min # of tuple updates before
>> > analyze
>> > autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.4 # fraction of rel size before
>> > vacuum
>> > autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.2 # fraction of rel size before
>> > analyze
>> >
>> > Is it ok to have these settings with increasing the amount of shared
>> > buffers
>> > ?
>>
>> Sure. What's your max connections set to?
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andy Dale | 2008-05-21 06:30:36 | Re: Server Configuration |
Previous Message | Andy Dale | 2008-05-21 06:06:57 | Re: Server Configuration |