Re: Upgrade to dual processor machine?
От | Shridhar Daithankar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Upgrade to dual processor machine? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3DD25A07.25377.488A27F@localhost обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Upgrade to dual processor machine? ("Henrik Steffen" <steffen@city-map.de>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 13 Nov 2002 at 9:14, Henrik Steffen wrote: > 1) in the docs it says: shared_buffers should be 2*max_connections, min 16. > now, you suggest to put it to 500-600 MB, which means I will have to > increase shared_buffers to 68683 -- is this really correct? I mean, > RAM is allready now almost totally consumed. Yes. 2*max connection is minimum. Anything additional is always welcome as long as it does not starve the system. If you have a gig of memory and shared buffers are 536MB as you have indicated, who is taking rest of the RAM? What are your current settings? Could you please repost. I lost earlier thread(Sorry for that.. Had a HDD meltdown here couple of days back. Lost few mails..) > 2) the database has a size of 3.6 GB at the moment... about 100 user tables. 500-600MB would take you comfortably in this case.. > 3) ok, I understand: I am not creating any indexes usually. Only once at night > all user indexes are dropped and recreated, I could imagine to increase the > sort_mem for this script... so sort_mem with 1024K is ok, or should it be > lowered to, say, 512K ? That actually depends upons size of table you are indexing and time you can allow for indexing. Default is 4 MB. I would something like 32MB should help a lot.. HTH Bye Shridhar -- QOTD: "It seems to me that your antenna doesn't bring in too many stations anymore."
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: