From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Database performance |
Date: | 2016-09-06 19:57:18 |
Message-ID: | CAOR=d=0+CN4q-c3aVTik1Ljn+MOUJyNaBVZxUZMf+sHq5Kojag@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Pradeep <pgundala(at)avineonindia(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> max_connections = 100
>>> shared_buffers = 512MB
>>> effective_cache_size = 24GB
>>> work_mem = 110100kB
>>
>> This is WAY too high for work_mem. Work_mem is how much memory a
>> single sort can grab at once. Each query may run > 1 sort, and you
>> could have 100 queries running at once.
>>
>> This setting is 110GB. That's about 109.9GB too high for safety. When
>> things go wrong with this too big, they go very wrong, sending the
>> machine into a swap storm from which it may not return.
>
> It's an oddly spelled 110MB, which doesn't seem unreasonable.
oh yeah. still kind biggish but not as big as I had thought.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | dudedoe01 | 2016-09-06 19:58:09 | Re: pgAdmin 4 records limit of 2000 |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2016-09-06 19:31:42 | Re: PostgreSQL Database performance |