Re: tuning our database by increasing shared buffer

From: "Allgood, John" <jallgood(at)ohl(dot)com>
To: "Glyn Astill" <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Barbara Stephenson" <barbara(at)turbocorp(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tuning our database by increasing shared buffer
Date: 2009-06-24 14:03:41
Message-ID: 82E499DEBAB95F4E91140984379FB1C6710D62@NOC-ML-09.ohlogistics.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

Hello Again

Here is the end output from a vacuum verbose on one of the databases. What exactly am I looking for. If I am reading the correctly then I am ok with the current settings.

INFO: free space map contains 2667 pages in 22 relations
DETAIL: A total of 3008 page slots are in use (including overhead).
3008 page slots are required to track all free space.
Current limits are: 153600 page slots, 1000 relations, using 965 kB.

John Allgood
Senior Systems Administrator
Turbo, division of OHL
2251 Jesse Jewell Pky. NE
Gainesville, GA 30507
tel: (678) 989-3051 fax: (770) 531-7878

jallgood(at)ohl(dot)com
www.ohl.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Glyn Astill [mailto:glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:46 AM
To: Barbara Stephenson; Tom Lane; Allgood, John
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] tuning our database by increasing shared buffer

Run a vacuum verbose and look at the output at the end.

Word is that as of 8.4 these parameters will autotune themselvs.

--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Allgood, John <jallgood(at)ohl(dot)com> wrote:

> From: Allgood, John <jallgood(at)ohl(dot)com>
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] tuning our database by increasing shared buffer
> To: "Barbara Stephenson" <barbara(at)turbocorp(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Date: Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 2:34 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello All
>
>  
>
> I am working with  Barbara
> on this project and I am curios about
> what would be a good starting place for setting the
> max_fsm_relations and
> max_fsm_pages. Here are the current values max_fsm_pages =
> 153600 and the
> max_fsm_relations is set to the default of 1000. I have
> have read that the
> output from vacuum can help determine the values. We are
> using the autovacuum
> daemon. Is there some logging from that process that could
> help.
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> John
> Allgood
>
> Senior
> Systems Administrator
>
> Turbo,
> division of OHL
>
> 2251
> Jesse Jewell Pky. NE
>
> Gainesville,
> GA 30507
>
> tel:
> (678) 989-3051  fax: (770) 531-7878
>
>
>  
>
> jallgood(at)ohl(dot)com
>
>
> www.ohl.com
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
> Barbara
> Stephenson
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:43 PM
>
> To: Tom Lane
>
> Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] tuning our database by
> increasing shared buffer
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
> Thank ypu!
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Barbara Stephenson <barbara(at)turbocorp(dot)com>
> writes: 
>
> We will
> be consolidating from 4 databases to 2 and want to make sure
> that  these parameters are the only ones
> that need changing.   Please
> advise.   
>
>   
>
> Current                                                       
> Future=====                                                         
> =====Max_connection =
> 50                                   
> 125Shared_buffers =
> 16MB                                 
> 48MB   
>
>  You will need to make sure that the
> FSM size parameters are correct forthe combined
> databases, too.   
>
> Shouldn't
> we increase the max_locks_per_transaction from 64 to 100 or
> 128 since we have more than doubled the # of
> connections?   
>
>
>  No, because the lock table size
> automatically scales withmax_connections. 
> (Probably max_locks_per_transaction should have
> beencalled max_locks_per_connection
> ...)   
>
> max_prepared_transaction
> is set at default of 5 which is says if we use it
> toset it to
> max_connection.   
>
>
>  Are you using prepared transactions
> at all?  If not, I'd actuallyrecommend
> setting that to zero to make sure nobody creates a
> preparedtransaction accidentally.  You do
> *not* want anyone doing PREPARETRANSACTION unless
> there's an XA manager or something in place to
> makesure the prepared xact gets committed or
> rolled back reasonably soon.
>                        
> regards, tom lane   
>
>  
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>  Barbara
> StephensonEDI
> Specialist/ProgrammerTurbo, division of
> OHL2251 Jesse Jewell
> PkwyGainesville, GA 
> 30507tel: (678)989-3020 fax:
> (404)935-6171barbara(at)turbocorp(dot)comwww(dot)ohl(dot)com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
>
>
> This e-mail transmission may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged and/or confidential and is intended
> exclusively for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any
> use, copying, retention or disclosure by any person other
> than the intended recipient or the intended recipient's
> designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient or their designee, please notify the
> sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies.
>
>
>
>
>

______________________________________________________

This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary, privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the intended recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or their designee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-06-24 14:24:13 Re: tuning our database by increasing shared buffer
Previous Message Glyn Astill 2009-06-24 13:46:01 Re: tuning our database by increasing shared buffer