Re: PostgreSQL 9.3.2 Performance tuning for 32 GB server

From: Julien Cigar <jcigar(at)ulb(dot)ac(dot)be>
To: RAMAKRISHNAN KANDASAMY <ramky24(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 9.3.2 Performance tuning for 32 GB server
Date: 2014-01-31 13:55:04
Message-ID: 20140131135504.GC23311@mordor.lan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:02:59PM +0530, RAMAKRISHNAN KANDASAMY wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have configured the blow parameters for a 32 GB server . I this correct ?
>
> shared_buffers = 6GB

going over 2GB probably doesn't help

> work_mem = 24MB maintenance_work_mem = 250MB

work_mem depends a lot of your queries and the number of clients, but
with 32GB RAM setting a default work_mem of 128MB would probably not
hurt. Your maintenance_work_mem is too low, raise it to 2GB.

> effective_cache_size = 16GB

if it's a dedicated server you can raise it to 24GB

> shared_preload_libraries = 'pg_stat_statements' pg_stat_statements.max =
> 10000 pg_stat_statements.track = all
> wal_buffers = 8MB
> checkpoint_segments = 32

depends of your load, 10's reasonable for light loads. 50 or 100 isn't
uncommon for heavier ones. Keep in mind that every increase
of 30 will cost you 1 gigabyte of disk space in pg_xlog and an extra
~2-5 minutes (depends of your i/o) of recovery time after a crash.

> checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9
>
>

It's considered as a bad habit to change the cost settings, but I often
raise the default cpu_tuple_cost to 0.08 (instead of 0.01) too.

> --
> --Regards
> RAMAKRISHNAN KANDASAMY

--
No trees were killed in the creation of this message.
However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-02-01 03:22:07 Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2014-01-30 22:03:32 Re: trick the query optimiser to skip some optimisations