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

Re: Configuring Shared Buffers

From: "Rafael Domiciano" <rafael(dot)domiciano(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Tino Schwarze" <postgresql(at)tisc(dot)de>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Configuring Shared Buffers
Date: 2008-06-30 23:41:38
Message-ID: 3a0028490806301641y780fdf52o9d6c473a9fe91d88@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
No, i don't have autovacum.
We tried it sometime ago, and the applications began to take "time-out".
I think we don't need autovacum, along the day the application don't get
slow, sometimes is faster (maybe the use of the applications is less).
The actual machine is Dual Core Xeon 1.5 and 2 Gb RAM.


2008/6/30 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:

> Rafael Domiciano escribió:
> > Yes, the server just does S, U, I and D.
> > The queries is pretty simples, don't have huge joins across tables...
> > In this server I have around 500 tables, the largest are:
> > 9 millions tuples | 5 millions tuples
> >
> > This server is our "authenticator"; the response is need to be
> "imediatly".
> > Today, the monitoring of the server is done using the unix command:
> > loguptime
> > With the time we discovered that when loguptime is up than 1.0 the
> response
> > begin to late, and the applications begin to take "Time-out".
>
> Have you tuned autovacuum?  Maybe you need it to be more frequent on
> certain tables or something.
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera
> http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
>

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: kevin kempterDate: 2008-06-30 23:42:52
Subject: pg_tables query issue
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-06-30 23:19:41
Subject: Re: Configuring Shared Buffers

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