Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:43:49 -0600 -n Farhan Husain <russ...@gmail.com> írta:
OK, you have two options: 1. Learn to read carefully, and differentiate between work_mem and shared_buffers options. Lower work_mem and rise shared_buffers as others wrote. 2. Leave Postgresql alone and go for Oracle or Microsoft SQL... Rgds, Akos > It was only after I got this high execution time when I started to > look into the configuration file and change those values. I tried > several combinations in which all those values were higher than the > default values. I got no improvement in runtime. The machine postgres > is running on has 4 GB of RAM. > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > shared_buffers = 32MB # min 128kB or > > >> > max_connections*16kB > > >> > > >> That's REALLY small for pgsql. Assuming your machine has at > > >> least 1G of ram, I'd set it to 128M to 256M as a minimum. > > > > > > As I wrote in a previous email, I had the value set to 1792MB (the > > highest I > > > could set) and had the same execution time. This value is not > > > helping me > > to > > > bring down the execution time. > > > > No, you increased work_mem, not shared_buffers. You might want to > > go and read the documentation: > > > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/runtime-config-resource.html > > > > But at any rate, the large work_mem was producing a very strange > > plan. It may help to see what the system does without that > > setting. But changing shared_buffers will not change the plan, so > > let's not worry about that right now. > > > > ...Robert > > > > > -- Üdvözlettel, Gábriel Ákos -=E-Mail :akos.gabr...@i-logic.hu|Web: http://www.i-logic.hu=- -=Tel/fax:+3612367353 |Mobil:+36209278894 =- -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
