Re: Two questions.. shared_buffers and long reader issue

Patric de Waha <lists(at)p-dw(dot)com> writes:
> Postgres is running on a dedicated server P4 DualCore, 4 Gig Ram.

When you don't even mention your disk hardware, that's a bad sign.
In a database server the disk is usually more important than the CPU.

> Why do long readers influence the rest of the transactions in such a
> heavy way?
> Any configuration changes which can help here?
> Is it a disc-IO bottleneck thing?

Very possibly. Have you spent any time watching "vmstat 1" output
to get a sense of whether your I/O is saturated?

> WAL files are located on another disc than the dbase itself.

That's good, but it only relates to update performance not SELECT
performance.

> effective_cache_size = 5000

That's way too small for a 4G machine. You could probably stand to
boost maintenance_work_mem too. However, neither of these have any
immediate relationship to your problem.

regards, tom lane