Mark Lonsdale wrote:
> Thanks guys, I think we'll certainly look to get the app certified with
> 7.4 and 8.x but that may take a little while. In the interim, Im
> thinking of making the following changes then:-
> Change Shared_buffers from 393216 to 80,000 ( ~15% of 4GB of RAM.
> Server is 8GB but I want to leave space for App as well )
You likely run into issues with anything over 16384. I have never seen a
benefit from shared_buffers over 12k or so with 7.3.
> Set my effective_cache_size to 125,000 ( ~25% of 4GB of RAM )
> Set my sort_mem to 8192
Joshua D. Drake
> Do those numbers look a bit better? Will probably see if we can make
> these changes asap as the server is struggling a bit now, which doesn't
> really make sense given how much memory is in it.
> Really appreciate your help and fast turnaround on this
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com]
> Sent: 25 October 2006 22:17
> To: Richard Huxton
> Cc: Mark Lonsdale; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Configuration Issue ?
> Richard Huxton wrote:
>> Mark Lonsdale wrote:
>>> Hi Josh
>>> Thanks for the feedback, that is most usefull. When you said one of
>>> settings was likely killing us, was it all of the settings for
>>> max_fsm_relations, max_fsm_pages, and sort_mem or just the setting
>>> sort_mem ?
>>> Can you explain why the setting would be killing me :-)
>> The sort_mem is crucial. It's memory *per sort*, which means one query
>> can use several times that amount.
> Worse then that it is:
> ((sort memory) * (number of sorts)) * (number of connections) = amount
> of ram possible to use.
> Now... take the following query:
> SELECT * FROM foo
> JOIN bar on (bar.id = foo.id)
> JOIN baz on (baz.id = foo_baz.id)
> ORDER BY baz.name, foo.salary;
> Over 5 million rows... How much ram you think you just used?
>>> The long and short is you need to upgrade to at least 7.4,
>> Joshua means this too. Upgrade to 7.3.16 within the next few days,
>> test out something more recent. You should see some useful performance
>> gains from 8.1.
> Right. The reason I suggested 7.4 is that he gets VACUUM VERBOSE in a
> reasonable fashion but of course 8.1 is better.
> Joshua D. Drake
=== 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
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2006-10-25 22:04:52|
|Subject: Re: commit so slow program looks frozen|
|Previous:||From: Mark Lonsdale||Date: 2006-10-25 21:31:29|
|Subject: Re: Configuration Issue ?|