> GB is just a typo I guess?
No, it isn't a typo. I meant it.
> Otherwise the value is insanely high.
I kinda agree, but I am in a process of finding an
equilibrium for my application. (I must admit I am
doing so in a bit of blind fashion, but that's kinda
where I am at.)
As I look at top utility's %MEM column as postgres
processes run under duress, it never goes beyond 1.9.
To me, that's like not using what is available. When
I see a larger number for %MEM, I will readjust as
In a previous correspondence, Scott said I was mild
in terms of postgres parameter tuning. Maybe I can
get him to say I am doing something WILD?! ;)
From: Jan-Peter Seifert [mailto:Jan-Peter(dot)Seifert(at)gmx(dot)de]
Sent: Sat 2/21/2009 5:45 AM
To: Tena Sakai; pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] very, very slow performance
> I have adjusted postgres parameters per your recommen-
> dation. Work_mem is now 8GB,
GB is just a typo I guess? Otherwise the value is insanely high. See:
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2009-02-21 21:39:32|
|Subject: Re: very, very slow performance|
|Previous:||From: Naomi Walker||Date: 2009-02-21 14:34:53|
|Subject: Re: 8.3.5 broken after power fail SOLVED|