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

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results
Date: 2003-02-12 05:35:38
Message-ID: GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOMEICCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
> > Machine:
> > 256MB RAM, FreeBSD 4.7, EIDE HDD, > 1 Ghz
>
> Seems like a small amount of memory to be memory based tests with.

Perhaps, but I'm benchmarking for that machine, not for any other.  The
results have to include the 256MB spec.

Also, the peak was 25MB of SHM, which still leave 231MB for the rest of the
system, so surely RAM is not the bottleneck here?

> What about testing sort_mem as well. It would system to me that there
> would be no negative to having infinite sort_mem given infinite memory,
> though.

Yeah, however I'm pretty sure that pgbench doesn't perform any sorts.

I reckon that sort_mem is the hardest thing to optimise1

Chris


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-02-12 05:51:22
Subject: Re: Projection while performing joins.
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-02-12 05:33:52
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>Date: 2003-02-12 06:14:54
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-02-12 05:33:52
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:

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