From: | Martin Nickel <martin(at)portant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: shared buffers |
Date: | 2005-09-05 02:56:01 |
Message-ID: | pan.2005.09.05.02.55.50.340618@portant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Chris,
Would you say that 30000 pages is a good maximum for a Postgres install?
We're running 8.0.3 on 64-bit SUSE on a dual Opteron box with 4G and have
shared_buffers set at 120000. I've moved it up and down (it was 160000
when I got here) without any measurable performance difference.
The reason I ask is because I occasionally see large-ish queries take
forever (like cancel-after-12-hours forever) and wondered if this could
result from shared_buffers being too large.
Thanks for your (and anyone else's) help!
Martin Nickel
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:08:21 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> I forgot to say that it´s a 12GB database...
>
> That's actually not that large.
>
>> Ok, I´ll set shared buffers to 30.000 pages but even so "meminfo" and
>> "top" shouldn´t show some shared pages?
>
> Yeah. The reason for not setting buffers so high is because PostgreSQL
> cannot efficiently manage huge shared buffers, so you're better off
> giving the RAM to Linux's disk cache.
>
> Chris
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Arnau | 2005-09-05 09:26:32 | Re: Advise about how to delete entries |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-04 23:01:10 | Re: poor VACUUM performance on large tables |