From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Chantal Ackermann <chantal(dot)ackermann(at)biomax(dot)de>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] optimizing query |
Date: | 2003-01-27 00:54:25 |
Message-ID: | 200301270054.h0R0sP721325@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> > postgresql.conf:
> > shared_buffers: 121600
> > max_connections: 64
> > max_fsm_relations = 200
> > max_fsm_pages = 40000
> > effective_cache_size = 8000
>
> Try increasing sort_mem.
>
> Also, I'd back off on shared_buffers if I were you. There's no evidence
> that values above a few thousand buy anything.
Increasing shared_buffers above several thousand will only be a win if
your entire working set will fit in the larger buffer pool, but didn't
in the previous size. If you working set is smaller or larger than
that, pushing it above several thousand isn't a win. Is that a more
definitive answer?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-27 02:48:45 | Re: 7.2.1 clients + 7.2.3 server? |
Previous Message | Antonios Linakis | 2003-01-26 22:51:05 | postgresql 7.3.1 + readline |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-01-27 08:17:45 | Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow |
Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2003-01-26 23:10:09 | Re: LOCK TABLE & speeding up mass data loads |