Re: [GENERAL] pgtune and massive shared_buffers recommendation

2014-05-27 Thread Shaun Thomas
On 05/21/2014 09:39 AM, Stuart Bishop wrote: I've got some boxes with 128GB of RAM and up to 750 connections, just upgraded to 9.3 so I'm revising my tuning. I'm getting a recommendation from pgtune to bump my shared_buffers up to 30GB and work_mem to 80MB. Is a shared_buffers this high now sane

Re: [GENERAL] pgtune and massive shared_buffers recommendation

2014-05-21 Thread Bill Moran
On Wed, 21 May 2014 21:39:05 +0700 Stuart Bishop wrote: > > I've got some boxes with 128GB of RAM and up to 750 connections, just > upgraded to 9.3 so I'm revising my tuning. I'm getting a > recommendation from pgtune to bump my shared_buffers up to 30GB and > work_mem to 80MB. Is a shared_buffe

[GENERAL] pgtune and massive shared_buffers recommendation

2014-05-21 Thread Stuart Bishop
Hi. I've got some boxes with 128GB of RAM and up to 750 connections, just upgraded to 9.3 so I'm revising my tuning. I'm getting a recommendation from pgtune to bump my shared_buffers up to 30GB and work_mem to 80MB. Is a shared_buffers this high now sane? The PostgreSQL reference doesn't make re

Re: [GENERAL] pgtune

2010-08-11 Thread Greg Smith
Jacqui Caren-home wrote: we had a rather neat tool for oracle some years ago that would connect to a live database and monitor the QEP (query execution plan) cache for badly indexed queries etc. It would use this information (with the schema meta data) to suggest creation and deletion of indices

Re: [GENERAL] pgtune

2010-08-11 Thread Jacqui Caren-home
Greg Smith wrote: Set "-c 300" when you run pgtune and it will do the right thing here. regarding tuning a database we had a rather neat tool for oracle some years ago that would connect to a live database and monitor the QEP (query execution plan) cache for badly indexed queries etc. It would

Re: [GENERAL] pgtune

2010-08-10 Thread Greg Smith
Sim Zacks wrote: 1) Are these settings the maximum that the server will handle, if it is strictly dedicated to postgresql? Meaning if I am running other stuff on the server as well, this would be a bad idea. The idea is that they will be in the right general range for a system running nothi

Re: [GENERAL] pgtune

2010-08-10 Thread Vibhor Kumar
On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:40 AM, tuanhoanganh wrote: > What is the name of DW in --type=DW > Sorry for my English. > DW: Data Warehouse > Tuan Hoang Anh > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Amitabh Kant wrote: > 2010/8/9 Sim Zacks > > > > I just found out about pgtune and am trying it out o

Re: [GENERAL] pgtune

2010-08-09 Thread Sim Zacks
On 09-Aug-2010 6:40 PM, tuanhoanganh wrote: > What is the name of DW in --type=DW > Sorry for my English. > > Tuan Hoang Anh DW = data warehouse. I don't think you have to apologize for your English. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your su

Re: [GENERAL] pgtune

2010-08-09 Thread tuanhoanganh
What is the name of DW in --type=DW Sorry for my English. Tuan Hoang Anh On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Amitabh Kant wrote: > 2010/8/9 Sim Zacks > > >> >> I just found out about pgtune and am trying it out on my server. >> >> >> I have 2.5 questions: >> >> 1) Are these settings the maximum th

Re: [GENERAL] pgtune

2010-08-09 Thread Amitabh Kant
2010/8/9 Sim Zacks > > > I just found out about pgtune and am trying it out on my server. > > > I have 2.5 questions: > > 1) Are these settings the maximum that the server will handle, if it is > strictly dedicated to postgresql? Meaning if I am running other stuff on > the server as well, this w

[GENERAL] pgtune

2010-08-09 Thread Sim Zacks
I just found out about pgtune and am trying it out on my server. I have 2.5 questions: 1) Are these settings the maximum that the server will handle, if it is strictly dedicated to postgresql? Meaning if I am running other stuff on the server as well, this would be a bad idea. 1a) If I have