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

Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net>
Cc: Nikolas Everett <nik9000(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
Date: 2010-04-20 19:24:34
Message-ID: h2xdcc563d11004201224wc7471e0dx335ab345d37f04ca@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM, David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:23:51PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> - So are you logging to the same drive that has pg_xlog and your
> - data/base directory on this machine?
> -
>
> the db, xlog and logs are all on separate areas of the SAN.
>
> separate I/O controllers, etc on the SAN. it's setup well, I wouldn't expect
> contention there.

Same xkb/s gigabit connection?

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dave CrookeDate: 2010-04-20 19:29:28
Subject: Re: SOLVED ... Re: Getting rid of a cursor from JDBC .... Re: [PERFORM] Re: HELP: How to tame the 8.3.x JDBC driver with a biq guery result set
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2010-04-20 19:22:36
Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?

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