Re: appropriate sort_mem & shared buffers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Markus Bertheau <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: appropriate sort_mem & shared buffers
Date: 2001-12-21 19:13:09
Message-ID: 19715.1008961989@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

Markus Bertheau <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de> writes:
> for a machine with 2 gig mem (1ghz pIII) is
> sort_mem =3D 128 # 64 Mebibyte

sort_mem is expressed in Kbytes, so you are not getting the results you
think. sort_mem = 65536 would equate to 64MB.

> shared_buffers =3D 65536 # 512 Mebibyte
> appropriate and reasonable?

I'd say both of those are on the high side. I'd go with half or a
quarter of those numbers as a starting point, ie sort_mem maybe about
16meg (16000), shared_buffers also maybe 16000. But since you didn't
say how many concurrent backends you expect to run, this is all just
theorizing in the dark.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Frank Hilliard 2001-12-21 21:47:38 phpPgAdmin Security hole
Previous Message Albert REINER 2001-12-21 17:20:12 Re: concating numeric with text