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

Re: postgres 7.4 at 100%

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Frank Knobbe <frank(at)knobbe(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: postgres 7.4 at 100%
Date: 2004-06-28 19:40:02
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance

> Doug said the same, yet the PG Tuning article recommends not make this
> too large as it is just temporary used by the query queue or so. (I
> guess the system would benefit using more memory for file system cache)

As one of the writers of that article, let me point out:

" -- Medium size data set and 256-512MB available RAM: 16-32MB (2048-4096) 
-- Large dataset and lots of available RAM (1-4GB): 64-256MB (8192-32768) "

While this is probably a little conservative, it's still way bigger than 40.

I would disagree with the folks who suggest 32,000 as a setting for you.   On 
Linux, that's a bit too large; I've never seen performance improvements with 
shared_buffers greater than 18% of *available* RAM.

-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Frank KnobbeDate: 2004-06-28 21:46:55
Subject: Re: postgres 7.4 at 100%
Previous:From: JimDate: 2004-06-28 17:44:03
Subject: Re: SQL stupid query plan... terrible performance !

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