| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Farhan Husain <russoue(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Abnormal performance difference between Postgres and MySQL |
| Date: | 2009-02-25 21:40:19 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070902251340i539b249ds1e2949a9822845af@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>> > shared_buffers = 32MB # min 128kB or
>> > max_connections*16kB
>>
>> That's REALLY small for pgsql. Assuming your machine has at least 1G
>> of ram, I'd set it to 128M to 256M as a minimum.
>
> As I wrote in a previous email, I had the value set to 1792MB (the highest I
> could set) and had the same execution time. This value is not helping me to
> bring down the execution time.
No, you increased work_mem, not shared_buffers. You might want to go
and read the documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/runtime-config-resource.html
But at any rate, the large work_mem was producing a very strange plan.
It may help to see what the system does without that setting. But
changing shared_buffers will not change the plan, so let's not worry
about that right now.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Farhan Husain | 2009-02-25 21:43:49 | Re: Abnormal performance difference between Postgres and MySQL |
| Previous Message | Claus Guttesen | 2009-02-25 21:39:56 | Re: Abnormal performance difference between Postgres and MySQL |