From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Sustained inserts per sec ... ? |
Date: | 2005-04-05 03:35:00 |
Message-ID: | 6490.1112672100@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Apr 4, 2005 10:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The indicated fix of course is to increase shared_buffers.
> Any idea where it should be set?
Not really. An upper bound would be the total size of the finished
indexes for one 10M-row table, but one would suppose that that's
overkill. The leaf pages shouldn't have to stay in RAM to have
reasonable behavior --- the killer case is when upper-level tree
pages drop out. Or that's what I'd expect anyway.
You could probably drop the inter-insert sleep for testing purposes,
if you want to experiment with several shared_buffers values quickly.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-04-05 03:45:47 | Re: Sustained inserts per sec ... ? |
Previous Message | Steven Rosenstein | 2005-04-05 03:05:13 | Re: Bulk COPY end of copy delimiter |