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

Re: very, very slow performance

From: "Tena Sakai" <tsakai(at)gallo(dot)ucsf(dot)edu>
To: "Jan-Peter Seifert" <Jan-Peter(dot)Seifert(at)gmx(dot)de>,<pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: very, very slow performance
Date: 2009-02-21 18:45:45
Message-ID: FE44E0D7EAD2ED4BB2165071DB8E328C0378F77B@egcrc-ex01.egcrc.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
Hi Peter,

> GB is just a typo I guess?
No, it isn't a typo.  I meant it.

> Otherwise the value is insanely high.
I kinda agree, but I am in a process of finding an
equilibrium for my application.  (I must admit I am
doing so in a bit of blind fashion, but that's kinda
where I am at.)

As I look at top utility's %MEM column as postgres
processes run under duress, it never goes beyond 1.9.
To me, that's like not using what is available.  When
I see a larger number for %MEM, I will readjust as
necessary.

In a previous correspondence, Scott said I was mild
in terms of postgres parameter tuning.  Maybe I can
get him to say I am doing something WILD?!  ;)

Regards,

Tena Sakai
tsakai(at)gallo(dot)ucsf(dot)edu


-----Original Message-----
From: Jan-Peter Seifert [mailto:Jan-Peter(dot)Seifert(at)gmx(dot)de]
Sent: Sat 2/21/2009 5:45 AM
To: Tena Sakai; pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] very, very slow performance
 
Hello,

> I have adjusted postgres parameters per your recommen-
> dation.  Work_mem is now 8GB,

GB is just a typo I guess? Otherwise the value is insanely high. See:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/runtime-config-resource.html

Peter

In response to

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2009-02-21 21:39:32
Subject: Re: very, very slow performance
Previous:From: Naomi WalkerDate: 2009-02-21 14:34:53
Subject: Re: 8.3.5 broken after power fail SOLVED

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