Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)
Subject Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster
Date
Msg-id 03071c81-aaad-f5ea-7a78-a4acb87960fd@mailpen.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster  ("Campbell, Lance" <lance@illinois.edu>)
List pgsql-performance
On 2021-05-28 12:18, Campbell, Lance wrote:
@font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;}span.EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;}div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}

Also, did you check your RDS setting in AWS after upgrading?  I run four databases in AWS.  I found that the work_mem was set way low after an upgrade.  I had to tweak many of my settings.

 

Lance


I've wondered a lot about work_mem.  The default setting (which I've tried) involves a formula, so I have no idea what the actual value is.  Since I have a db.t2.micro (now db.t3.micro) instance with only 1GB of RAM, I've tried a value of 8000. No difference.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)"
Date:
Subject: Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster