Dennis,

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, John Mendenhall wrote:
> 
> > Our setting for effective_cache_size is 2048.
> > 
> > random_page_cost = 4, effective_cache_size = 2048   time approximately 
> > 4500ms
> > random_page_cost = 3, effective_cache_size = 2048   time approximately 
> > 1050ms
> > random_page_cost = 3, effective_cache_size = 4096   time approximately 
> > 1025ms
> 
> The effective_cache_size still looks small. As a rule of tumb you might
> want effective_cache_size to be something like 1/2 or 2/3 of your total
> memory. I don't know how much you had, but effective_cache_size = 4096 is
> only 32M.
> 
> shared_buffers and effective_cache_size is normally the two most important 
> settings in my experience.

I have increased the effective_cache_size to 16384 (128M).  I have kept
random_page_cost at 3 for now.  This appears to give me the performance
I need at this time.

In the future, we'll look at other methods of increasing the
performance.

Thank you all for all your suggestions.

JohnM

-- 
John Mendenhall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
surf utopia
internet services

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Reply via email to