| From: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL" <martin(at)portant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.1 iss |
| Date: | 2005-11-08 10:34:19 |
| Message-ID: | 200511081134.19495.mweilguni@sime.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Am Montag, 7. November 2005 18:22 schrieb PostgreSQL:
> My most humble apologies to the pg development team (pg_lets?).
>
> I took Greg Stark's advice and set:
>
> shared_buffers = 10000 # was 50000
> work_mem = 1048576 # 1Gb - was 16384
>
> Also, I noticed that the EXPLAIN ANALYZE consistently thought reads would
> take longer than they actually did, so I decreased random_page_cost down to
> 1 (the server has a SATA Raid at level 10).
Don't do that, use 1.5 or 2, setting it to 1 will only work well if you have
small databases fitting completly in memory.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-11-08 11:14:41 | Re: Sort performance on large tables |
| Previous Message | Christian Paul B. Cosinas | 2005-11-08 10:22:01 | Re: Temporary Table |