> >max_connections = 160
> >shared_buffers = 2048 [Total = 2.5 Gb.]
> >sort_mem = 8192 [Total = 1280 Mb.]
> >vacuum_mem = 16384
> >effective_cache_size = 128897 [= 1007 Mb. = 1 Gb. ]
> >Will it be more suitable for my server than before?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I would keep shared_buffers in the 10000->20000 range, as this is
> allocated *once* into shared memory, so only uses 80->160 Mb in *total*.
You mean that if I increase the share buffer to arround 12000 [160 comnnections
] , this will not affect the mem. usage ?
> The lower sort_mem will help reduce memory pressure (as this is
> allocated for every backend connection) and this will help performance -
> *unless* you have lots of queries that need to sort large datasets. If
> so, then these will hammer your i/o subsystem, possibly canceling any
> gain from freeing up more memory. So there is a need to understand what
> sort of workload you have!
Will the increasing in effective cache size to arround 200000 make a little bit
improvement ? Do you think so?
Any comment please , thanks.
Amrit
Thailand
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
