Re: Performance Bottleneck
От
Gaetano Mendola
Тема
Re: Performance Bottleneck
Дата
Msg-id
4114AABD.7050505@bigfoot.com
Ответ на
Re: Performance Bottleneck (Tom Lane)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Michael Adler <adler@pobox.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud<lists@boutiquenumerique.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Mike Benoit <ipso@snappymail.ca>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Mike Benoit <ipso@snappymail.ca>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud<lists@boutiquenumerique.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck "Matt Clark" <matt@ymogen.net>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@vulcanus.its.tudelft.nl>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Alex Hayward <xelah-pgsql@xelah.com>
Re: Performance Bottleneck matt@ymogen.net
Re: Performance Bottleneck Martin Foster <martin@ethereal-realms.org>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: Performance Bottleneck Dennis Bjorklund <db@zigo.dhs.org>
Tom Lane wrote: > Martin Foster writes: > >>Gaetano Mendola wrote: >> >>>change this values in: >>>shared_buffers = 50000 >>>sort_mem = 16084 >>> >>>wal_buffers = 1500 > > > This value of wal_buffers is simply ridiculous. Instead I think is ridiculous a wal_buffers = 8 ( 64KB ) by default. > There isn't any reason to set wal_buffers higher than the amount of > WAL log data that will be generated by a single transaction, because > whatever is in the buffers will be flushed at transaction commit. > If you are mainly dealing with heavy concurrency then it's the mean time > between transaction commits that matters, and that's even less than the > average transaction length. I partially agree with you, tell me how decide that value without even now the typical queries, the tipical load ... nothing. I suggested to OP to keep the wal_buffers so high in order to eliminate one freedom of degree in his performance problems. You can see from following reply, ======================================================================== Gaetano Mendola wrote: Unfortunately there is no a "wizard tuning" for postgres so each one of us have a own "school". The data I gave you are oversized to be sure to achieve improvements. Now you can start to decrease these values ( starting from the wal_buffers ) in order to find the good compromise with your HW. ======================================================================== However wal_buffers = 1500 means ~12 MB that are not so expensive considering a server with 2GB of ram and I think that is a good compromise if you are not starving for RAM. I had a discussion about how fine tuning a postgres server with a client, my question was: are you planning to have someone that periodically take a look at your server activities in order to use your hardware at the best? Easy answer: No, because when the server is overloaded I will buy a bigger one that is less expensive that pay someone, considering also that shareolders prefer increase the capex that pay salaries ( if the company close the hardware can be selled :-( ). This is the real world out there. Regards Gaetano Mendola
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления