Re: Shared buffers vs large files
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Shared buffers vs large files |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1015028021.4008.15.camel@jiro обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Shared buffers vs large files ("Glen Parker" <glenebob@nwlink.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Shared buffers vs large files
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 18:57, Glen Parker wrote: > > shared_buffers at 4096 (32MB if my calculations are correct), > > sort_mem = 65536 # min 32 > > vacuum_mem = 16384 # min 1024 > > > > The machine has 1GB of ram. > > > > I don't expect to have more than a handfull of connections at a time (from > > 1 to 10). Should I increate the shared buffers to 64MB? 128MB? > > On a 1GB machine (still PG 7.1.3) I'm currently running: > > shared_buffers: 48000 (about 400MB) > sort_mem: 8192 > > I haven't done much testing with sort_mem values, but... > > This is very very VERY unscientific, but I haven't seen a shared_buffers > value that is so big that it seems to hurt performance (unless it causes > swapping obviously), and my installation is dedicated to postgres so I don't > need the memory for much of anything else. Keep in mind that this memory is allocated by Postgres on postmaster startup. Thus, the kernel can't use it for I/O buffers. Depending on what UNIX variant you're running and the kind of load the box is under, setting shared_buffers that high may or may not be a performance win. However, I agree with you in principle: for a production PostgreSQL server, the default shared_buffers settings are ridiculously small. Another parameter to consider increasing is wal_buffers; in my experience that can improve performance as well. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: