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

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

From: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(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 05:19:30
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0302121616330.30946-100000@linuxworld.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
Hi Chris,

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> Machine:
> 256MB RAM, FreeBSD 4.7, EIDE HDD, > 1 Ghz

Seems like a small amount of memory to be memory based tests with.

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.

Gavin


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-02-12 05:27:31
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-02-12 05:12:03
Subject: Re: Hash grouping, aggregates

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-02-12 05:27:31
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-02-12 05:08:38
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results

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