>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: [PERFORM] Version 7 question
> I'm just trying to improve performance on version 7 before doing some
tests and hopefully upgrading to 7.3.
>
> At the moment we have
> B=64 (no of shared buffers)
>
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:02:21 +0200, "Michael Mattox"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have 1.5 gigs of RAM on my
>server but I'm also running a few other java programs that take up probably
>500 megs total of memory, leaving me 1gig for Postgres. Should I set my
>shared buffers to be 25% of 1gig? Tha
t; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Howard
> > Oblowitz
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:06 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: FW: [PERFORM] Version 7 question
> >
> >
> > What would be the best value range for effecti
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Michael Mattox wrote:
> My understanding is to use as much effect cache as possible, so figure out
> how much ram you need for your other applications & OS and then give the
> rest to postgres as effective cache.
>
> What I learned to day is the shared_buffers 25% of RAM guide
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Howard
> Oblowitz
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: FW: [PERFORM] Version 7 question
>
>
> What would be the best value range for effective_cache_size
> on Postgres
uld take
> into account in determining the value?
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: scott.marlowe [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 01 July 2003 02:56
> > To: Michael Mattox
> > Cc: Hilary Forbes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subjec
; From: scott.marlowe [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 01 July 2003 02:56
> To: Michael Mattox
> Cc: Hilary Forbes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Version 7 question
>
> 8192 is only 64 megs of RAM, not much, but a good number. Keep in mind
> that the k
ehalf Of Hilary
> > Forbes
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:10 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [PERFORM] Version 7 question
> >
> >
> > I'm just trying to improve performance on version 7 before doing
> > some tests and hopefully upgra
> yes, I'd say start with about 25% of RAM, then adjust from there. If 25%
> takes you over your SHMMAX then start at your SHMMAX.
You're the first person I've seen to suggest that many buffers. I've read
that too many can slow down performance. I have 1.5 gigs of RAM on my
server but I'm also r
On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 08:10, Hilary Forbes wrote:
> I'm just trying to improve performance on version 7 before doing some
tests and hopefully upgrading to 7.3.
>
> At the moment we have
> B=64 (no of shared buffers)
> N=32 (no of connections)
> in postmaster.opt which I take it is the equivalen
Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hilary
> Forbes
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PERFORM] Version 7 question
>
>
> I'm just trying to improve performance on version 7 before doing
I'm just trying to improve performance on version 7 before doing some tests and
hopefully upgrading to 7.3.
At the moment we have
B=64 (no of shared buffers)
N=32 (no of connections)
in postmaster.opt which I take it is the equivalent of the new postgresql.conf file.
From all that is being w
12 matches
Mail list logo
