| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Adarsh Sharma <adarsh(dot)sharma(at)orkash(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Need to tune for Heavy Write |
| Date: | 2011-08-17 21:17:18 |
| Message-ID: | 51AF6021-45B8-4C81-8B24-375837310342@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Aug 4, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Kevin Grittner
> <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>>> RAM : 16 GB
>>
>>> effective_cache_size = 4096MB
>>
>> That should probably be more like 12GB to 15GB. It probably won't
>> affect the load time here, but could affect other queries.
>
> Actually on a heavily written database a large effective cache size
> makes things slower.
effective_cache_size or shared_buffers? I can see why a large shared_buffers could cause problems, but what effect does effective_cache_size have on a write workload?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2011-08-17 21:17:31 | Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++ |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-17 21:17:11 | Re: DBT-5 & Postgres 9.0.3 |