ill a no go. I'm down to 5GB and it works, but this is the same hardware,
>> the same exact 9.5 configuration. So I'm missing something. WE have not had
>> to mess with kernel memory settings since 9.4, so this is an odd one.
>> >
>> > I'll keep digging,
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:09 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 11, 2020, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>
>> Repost, edited subject by mistake...
>>
>> On Monday, May 11, 2020, Tory M Blue wrote:
>>>
>>> And just to repeat. Same exact hardware, same kernel,
On Monday, May 11, 2020, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> Repost, edited subject by mistake...
>
> On Monday, May 11, 2020, Tory M Blue wrote:
>>
>> And just to repeat. Same exact hardware, same kernel, nothing more than
>> installing the latest postgres12, copying my config files from 9.5 to 12
>> an
Repost, edited subject by mistake...
On Monday, May 11, 2020, Tory M Blue wrote:
>
> And just to repeat. Same exact hardware, same kernel, nothing more than
> installing the latest postgres12, copying my config files from 9.5 to 12
> and running the pg_upgrade.
>
You’ll want to remove the pg_upg
On Monday, May 11, 2020, Tory M Blue wrote:
>
>
> And just to repeat. Same exact hardware, same kernel, nothing more than
> installing the latest postgres12, copying my config files from 9.5 to 12
> and running the pg_upgrade.
>
You’ll want to remove the pg_upgrade from the equation and try v12
e exact 9.5 configuration. So I'm missing something. WE have not had
> to mess with kernel memory settings since 9.4, so this is an odd one.
> >
> > I'll keep digging, but i'm hesitant to do my multiple TB db's with half
> of their shared buffer configs, until
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:57 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Tory M Blue writes:
> > That may be the next step in the lab, but was hoping someone knew of a
> > significant difference.
>
> I think we've made it perfectly clear that we don't. There's something
> odd about your situation.
>
>
Tory M Blue writes:
> That may be the next step in the lab, but was hoping someone knew of a
> significant difference.
I think we've made it perfectly clear that we don't. There's something
odd about your situation.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 7:57 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 11, 2020, Tory M Blue wrote:
>
>> I'll keep digging, but i'm hesitant to do my multiple TB db's with half
of their shared buffer configs, until I understand what 12 is doing
different
not had to
> mess with kernel memory settings since 9.4, so this is an odd one.
>
> I'll keep digging, but i'm hesitant to do my multiple TB db's with half of
> their shared buffer configs, until I understand what 12 is doing differently
> than 9.5
Which exact v
On Monday, May 11, 2020, Tory M Blue wrote:
> I'll keep digging, but i'm hesitant to do my multiple TB db's with half of
>>> their shared buffer configs, until I understand what 12 is doing
>>> differently than 9.5
>>
>>
Maybe run your test suite on 9.6, 10, and 11 to see if it is indeed new to
1
memory configuration.
Attempted to change ;
#shared_memory_type = 'sysv'
It took the change but didn't help. So 10GB of shared_buffers in 12 is
still a no go. I'm down to 5GB and it works, but this is the same hardware,
the same exact 9.5 configuration. So I'm missing som
Tory M Blue writes:
> Okay the one difference I see in settings is this little gem in 12..
> shared_memory_type mmap
Well, v12 is just exposing a switch for something that was hard-wired
before. But now I wonder if your 9.5 installation could've been compiled
to force it to use SysV shmem instea
really different.
It's very possible that there are new defaults , new memory settings
that I'm not finding in the default postgresql 12 .conf file, and my
include is not overwriting it. But really I just can't fathom what that
could be.. Buffers, work mem, effective cache, what
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Tory M Blue writes:
> > 12 will not start at 10GB, even though it's the same hardware, same
> config
> > file, same physical box, same everything, just version 12 vs 9.5
>
> For me, using all-default settings (in particular, shared_buffers =
> 12
tions, don't even have 9.5
binaries anymore and 12 will not start with my 9.5 configuration of 10GB
buffers. So something feels really different.
It's very possible that there are new defaults , new memory settings that
I'm not finding in the default postgresql 12 .conf file, and my in
Tory M Blue writes:
> 12 will not start at 10GB, even though it's the same hardware, same config
> file, same physical box, same everything, just version 12 vs 9.5
For me, using all-default settings (in particular, shared_buffers =
128MB), the shared memory block is about 141.6MB using 9.5 and 14
written in my local config file (I run an include and my
own settings), this worked fine in 9.5 but I'm guessing there is something
considerably different between 9.5 and 12 (I'm just not seeing it). Anyone
with insight into what memory settings may have been added in 10/11/12 that
are sig
s.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Memory settings
Try run postgresqltuner.pl<http://postgresqltuner.pl> as suggested on
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server and also look at
the other info there.
After running a few days with live data run cache_hit_rat
precision)::numeric, 2) DESC;
The real question is: Is your system slow?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 5:14 AM Daulat Ram
wrote:
> Hi team,
>
>
>
> Can you please suggest what will be the suitable memory settings for
> Postgresql11 if we have 80gb RAM, 16 CPU’s and OS Linux.
>
&g
Hi team,
Can you please suggest what will be the suitable memory settings for
Postgresql11 if we have 80gb RAM, 16 CPU's and OS Linux.
If we set 25 % of total RAM then shared_buffers value will be 20GB. Will it be
useful or we can set it any random vale like 8g or 12gb.
According to
Can you please suggest what will be the suitable memory settings for
Postgresql11 if we have 80gb RAM, 16 CPU's and OS Linux.
If we set 25 % of total RAM then shared_buffers value will be 20GB. Will it be
useful or we can set it any random vale like 8g or 12gb.
According to
22 matches
Mail list logo
