Re: PostgreSQL performance problem -> tuning
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: PostgreSQL performance problem -> tuning |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1566.1060193599@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | PostgreSQL performance problem -> tuning (Yaroslav Mazurak <yamazurak@Lviv.Bank.Gov.UA>) |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
Yaroslav Mazurak <yamazurak@Lviv.Bank.Gov.UA> writes:
> Current postgresql.conf settings (some) are:
> max_locks_per_transaction = 16
This strikes me as a really bad idea --- you save little space by
reducing it from the default, and open yourself up to unexpected failures.
> wal_buffers = 256
That is almost certainly way more than you need.
> sort_mem = 131072
People have already told you that one's a bad idea.
> commit_delay = 32000
I'm unconvinced that setting this nonzero is a good idea. Have you done
experiments to prove that you get a benefit?
> enable_seqscan = false
This is the cause of the bizarre-looking cost estimates. I don't
recommend setting it false as a system-wide setting. If you want
to nudge the planner towards indexscans, reducing random_page_cost
a little is probably a better way.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: