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

Re: how much mem to give postgres?

From: Josh Close <narshe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: POSTGRES-PERFORMANCE <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: how much mem to give postgres?
Date: 2004-10-20 13:36:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:35:31 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I suspect that fooling with shared_buffers is entirely the wrong tree
> for you to be barking up.  My suggestion is to be looking at individual
> queries that are slow, and seeing how to speed those up.  This might
> involve adding indexes, or tweaking the query source, or adjusting
> planner parameters, or several other things.  EXPLAIN ANALYZE is your
> friend ...
>                         regards, tom lane

Only problem is, a "select count(1)" is taking a long time. Indexes
shouldn't matter with this since it's counting every row, right? The
tables are fairly well indexed also, I could probably add a few more.

If shared_buffers isn't the way to go ( you said 10k is the sweetspot
), then what about the effective_cache_size? I was suggested on the
general list about possibly setting that to 75% of ram.



In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Josh CloseDate: 2004-10-20 13:39:53
Subject: Re: how much mem to give postgres?
Previous:From: Matt ClarkDate: 2004-10-20 13:23:21
Subject: Re: OS desicion

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