| From: | Lew <noone(at)lwsc(dot)ehost-services(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Config help |
| Date: | 2009-11-16 05:38:29 |
| Message-ID: | hdqogn$a19$1@news.albasani.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
BuyAndRead Test wrote:
>> This is a virtual server, so I could give it as much as 8 GB of memory if
>> this will give much higher performance. What should shared_buffere be
>> set to
>> if I use 8 GB, as much as 4 GB?
John R Pierce wrote:
> I'd keep it around 1-2GB shared_buffers, and let the rest of the memory
> be used as file system cache. postgres works quite happily that way.
From what I understand, database tuning is one of the Dark Arts. PG is
unique in that it's enterprise-grade but that standard settings work well
across a wide range of usage scenarios. If you are dealing with unusually
large numbers of connections and/or unusually large working sets, I'm guessing
as you approach terabyte-scale dbs and up, it pays to go to even larger
shared_buffers and work_mem and do other arcane tuning magic.
--
Lew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Malm Paul | 2009-11-16 07:36:52 | dumping parts of a database |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Izmailov | 2009-11-16 05:30:01 | passing parameters to multiple statements |