| From: | Michael Riess <mlriess(at)gmx(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 15,000 tables - next step |
| Date: | 2005-12-03 16:41:42 |
| Message-ID: | dmshs4$2blb$1@news.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Alvaro Herrera schrieb:
> Michael Riess wrote:
>
>> Shared memory ... I currently use 1500 buffers for 50 connections, and
>> performance really suffered when I used 3000 buffers. The problem is
>> that it is a 1GB machine, and Apache + Tomcat need about 400MB.
>
> Well, I'd think that's were your problem is. Not only you have a
> (relatively speaking) small server -- you also share it with other
> very-memory-hungry services! That's not a situation I'd like to be in.
> Try putting Apache and Tomcat elsewhere, and leave the bulk of the 1GB
> to Postgres.
No can do. I can try to switch to a 2GB machine, but I will not use
several machines. Not for a 5GB database. ;-)
> With 1500 shared buffers you are not really going
> anywhere -- you should have ten times that at the very least.
>
Like I said - I tried to double the buffers and the performance did not
improve in the least. And I also tried this on a 2GB machine, and
swapping was not a problem. If I used 10x more buffers, I would in
essence remove the OS buffers.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2005-12-03 18:45:06 | Re: 15,000 tables - next step |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-12-03 16:26:42 | Re: 15,000 tables - next step |