> Doug said the same, yet the PG Tuning article recommends not make this
> too large as it is just temporary used by the query queue or so. (I
> guess the system would benefit using more memory for file system cache)
As one of the writers of that article, let me point out:
" -- Medium size data set and 256-512MB available RAM: 16-32MB (2048-4096)
-- Large dataset and lots of available RAM (1-4GB): 64-256MB (8192-32768) "
While this is probably a little conservative, it's still way bigger than 40.
I would disagree with the folks who suggest 32,000 as a setting for you. On
Linux, that's a bit too large; I've never seen performance improvements with
shared_buffers greater than 18% of *available* RAM.
Aglio Database Solutions
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Frank Knobbe||Date: 2004-06-28 21:46:55|
|Subject: Re: postgres 7.4 at 100%|
|Previous:||From: Jim||Date: 2004-06-28 17:44:03|
|Subject: Re: SQL stupid query plan... terrible performance !|