Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1(at)burntmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Date: 2007-01-07 04:56:47
Message-ID: 1168145807.869.22.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


> Regarding shared_buffers=750MB, the last discussions I remember on this
> subject said that anything over 10,000 (8K buffers = 80 MB) had unproven
> benefits. So I'm surprised to see such a large value suggested. I'll
> certainly give it a try and see what happens.
>

That is old news :) As of 8.1 it is quite beneficial to go well above
the aforementioned amount.

J

> >>
> >> autovacuum=on
> >> stats_row_level = on
> >> max_connections = 10
> >> listen_addresses = 'db01,localhost'
> >> shared_buffers = 128MB
> >> work_mem = 16MB
> >> maintenance_work_mem = 64MB
> >> temp_buffers = 32MB
> >> max_fsm_pages = 204800
> >> checkpoint_segments = 30
> >> redirect_stderr = on
> >> log_line_prefix = '%t %d'
--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig A. James 2007-01-07 07:23:32 Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Previous Message Colin Taylor 2007-01-07 04:37:08 table partioning performance