Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jennifer Trey
Тема Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.
Дата
Msg-id 863606ec0904080924oa0f8196ha0d51d4f131f6a17@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.  (Scott Mead <scott.lists@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.  (David Wilson <david.t.wilson@gmail.com>)
Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.  (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>)
Список pgsql-general
Scott, thank you.

I think I might have misunderstood the effective cache size. Its measured in 8kB blocks. So the old number 449697 equals 3.5 GB, which is quite much. Should I lower this? I had plans to use 2.75GB max. Can I put 2.75GB there? Should I leave it?


Also, Greg. Since I use Java, prepared statements are quite natural. And I read this part on the guide which I understand you are part of : 

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-resource.html#GUC-MAX-PREPARED-TRANSACTIONS

Should I change this value? Not sure... :S 

Worried about the locks... whats your though on this? Should I just leave it alone?


Sincerely / Jennifer

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Scott Mead
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.
Следующее
От: Sam Mason
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table?