Re: good settings for DB parameters such as shared_buffers, checkpoint_segment in Postrgesql 9

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-general General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: good settings for DB parameters such as shared_buffers, checkpoint_segment in Postrgesql 9
Date: 2010-11-11 16:45:33
Message-ID: 20101111164533.GF19270@fetter.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 08:30:16AM -0500, Vick Khera wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:59 AM, AI Rumman <rummandba(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Server Specification:
> >   dual-core 4 cpu
> >   RAM: 32 GB
> >   OS: Centos
> > What will be good settings for DB parameters such as shared_buffers,
> > checkpoint_segment and etc.
>
> I'll take this one ... :) On my 24GB quad-core Opteron servers
> running FreeBSD 8.1, with big external fibre connected RAID array, I
> use the following changes relative to the default 9.0.1
> postgresql.conf. You probably don't need to adjust the prepared
> transactions setting, unless you use them :-)
>
> The default config is pretty darned good, compared to what used to
> ship with older releases like 8.1 :)
>
> listen_addresses = '*'
> max_connections = 200
> shared_buffers = 4200MB
> max_prepared_transactions = 100 # guideline: same number as max_connections

This should be either 0 (no 2PC) or the bounded from below by
max_connections.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vangelis Katsikaros 2010-11-11 16:46:32 Re: ignore errors for COPY [solved]
Previous Message Joachim Worringen 2010-11-11 16:34:50 Re: Considering Solid State Drives