From: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hardware performance for large updates |
Date: | 2002-09-06 16:10:26 |
Message-ID: | web-1635967@davinci.ethosmedia.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Joe,
> I think we'd need more information to be of any help -- schema,
> functions, explain output, etc.
Yeah, I know. I'm just looking for general tips here ... I need to do
the actual optimization interactively.
Particularly, the difficulty is that this application gets many small
requests during the day (100 simultaneous uses) and shares a server
with Apache. So I have to be concerned about how much memory each
connection soaks up, during the day. At night, the maintainence tasks
run a few, really massive procedures.
So I should probably restart Postgres with different settings at night,
hey?
> I do think you probably could increase Shared Buffers, as 256 is
> pretty small. There's been a lot of debate over the best setting. The
> usual guidance is start at 25% of physical RAM (16384 == 128MB if you
> have 512MB RAM), then tweak to optimize performance for your
> application and hardware.
Hmmm... how big is a shared buffer, anyway? I'm having trouble
finding actual numbers in the docs.
> You might also bump sort mem up a bit
> (maybe to 2048). Again, I would test using my app and hardware to get
> the best value.
> Are you on a Linux server -- if so I found that
> fdatasync works better than (the default) fsync for wal_sync_method.
Yes, I am. Any particular reason why fdatasync works better?
Thanks a lot!
-Josh Berkus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-09-07 03:57:40 | Re: Hardware performance for large updates |
Previous Message | jlparkinson | 2002-09-06 10:59:56 | Slow Multi-joins performance |