| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stef <svb(at)ucs(dot)co(dot)za> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres low end processing. |
| Date: | 2003-10-03 16:32:00 |
| Message-ID: | 26554.1065198720@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
Stef <svb(at)ucs(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
> Crawling is ok. Won't differ much from normal operation on a machine
> like that. Any tips on how to achieve the most diminutive vmem an
> conf settings?
The out-of-the-box settings are already pretty diminutive on current
releases :-(. In 7.4 you'd likely want to knock back shared_buffers
and max_connections, and maybe the fsm settings if the database is going
to be tiny.
> I tried to figure this out from the docs, and played
> around with backend/storage , but I'm not really winning.
What exactly is failing? And what's the platform, anyway?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-10-03 16:32:25 | Re: Server recommendations |
| Previous Message | Ben | 2003-10-03 16:30:41 | Re: validation of postgresql functions |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hilary Forbes | 2003-10-03 16:50:17 | Re: count(*) slow on large tables |
| Previous Message | Stef | 2003-10-03 16:10:02 | Re: Postgres low end processing. |