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

Re: Tuning for mid-size server

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Tuning for mid-size server
Date: 2003-12-14 05:42:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:11:17PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > I think where it makes sense is when you have something like a report 
> > server where the result sets may be huge, but the parellel load is load, 
> > i.e. 5 or 10 users tossing around 100 Meg or more at time.
> In our case, we were noticing that truss showed an unbelievable
> amount of time spent by the postmaster doing open() calls to the OS
> (this was on Solaris 7).  So we thought, "Let's try a 2G buffer
> size."  2G was more than enough to hold the entire data set under
> question.  Once the buffer started to fill, even plain SELECTs
> started taking a long time.  The buffer algorithm is just not that
> clever, was my conclusion.
> (Standard disclaimer: not a long, controlled test.  It's just a bit
> of gossip.)

I know this is an old email, but have you tested larger shared buffers
in CVS HEAD with Jan's new cache replacement policy?

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-12-14 05:44:00
Subject: Update performance doc
Previous:From: Jeff BohmerDate: 2003-12-13 23:00:32
Subject: Re: Hardware suggestions for Linux/PGSQL server

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group