Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Aaron Krowne" <akrowne(at)vt(dot)edu>,<pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: <akrowne(at)vt(dot)edu>
Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org
Date: 2003-03-17 02:08:10
Message-ID: 021301c2ec2a$10cfca70$6500a8c0@fhp.internal (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
> - Lastly, I tried reducing the shared memory max and limiting postgresql
>   to more conservative values, although still not to the out-of-box
>   values.  Right now shared memory max on the system is 128mb,
>   postgres's shared buffers are at 64mb, sort_mem is at 16mb, and
>   effective cache size is at 10mb.

I found that 5000 shared buffers was best performance on my system.
However, your problems are probably due to maybe not running vacuum,
analyze, reindex, etc.  Your queries may not be effectively indexed -
EXPLAIN ANALYZE them all.

Chris


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Sean ChittendenDate: 2003-03-17 06:10:11
Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org
Previous:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2003-03-16 11:29:14
Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group