> could you post your $PGDATA/postgresql.conf for our viewing
> pleasure ?
max_connections = 64
shared_buffers = 65536 # 1/2 total RAM /8K
sort_mem = 100000 # min 64, size in KB
checkpoint_timeout = 300 # range 30-3600, in seconds
fsync = false
effective_cache_size = 65536 # typically 8KB each
log_timestamp = true
notice, warning, error
stats_command_string = true
stats_row_level = true
stats_block_level = true
LC_MESSAGES = 'C'
LC_MONETARY = 'C'
LC_NUMERIC = 'C'
LC_TIME = 'C'
I've stripped out the default lines (grep -v ^#) comments and
> Another CPU will probably not help with bulk loads or other
> single-user stuff.
> For single-user tasks you will probably be better off by
> getting a gray box with Athlon 2600+ with 3 Gigs of memory and
> IDE disks and running Linux or *BSD .
Hannu brings up a good point - one that was debated before my
attempts at making Solaris faster. If you were going to make a
fast postgres server what would you use? Assuming you could
afford a SunFire 280R (~$8k?), would that money be better spent
on a (say) Dell server running (say) linux? We're doing light
multiuser (I guess effectively single user) but at some point
(years) this may grow considereably. I'm not particular to
Macs, but I've got to say, that stock out the box, postgres
loves it. That old G3 was faster than the Sun, and still is
faster than my (years newer) linux laptop (on which I've done no
performance tweaking). So maybe a dual G4 Xserver would scream?
Any suggestions? It's still not too late for us to change our
minds on this one.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-01-14 18:15:54|
|Subject: Re: Sun vs. Mac |
|Previous:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2003-01-14 17:58:48|
|Subject: Re: Sun vs. Mac|