Re: Insert are going slower ... - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: Insert are going slower ...
Date
Msg-id 1090859137.22512.12.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Insert are going slower ...  (Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 08:20, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Hervé Piedvache wrote:

SNIP

> > sort_mem =   512000
>
> This is too much, you are instructing Postgres to use 512MB
> for each backend ( some time each backend can use this quantity
> more then one )

agreed.  If any one process needs this much sort mem, you can set it in
that sessions with set sort_mem anyway, so to let every sort consume up
to 512 meg is asking for trouble.

> > effective_cache_size = 5000000
>
> 5GB for 8 GB system is too much

No, it's not.  Assuming that postgresql with all it's shared buffers is
using <2 gig, it's quite likely that the kernel is caching at least 5
gigs of disk data.  Effective cache size doesn't set any cache size, it
tells the planner about how much the kernel is caching.

> > random_page_cost = 3
>
> on your HW you can decrease it to 2
> and also decrease the other cpu costs

On fast machines it often winds up needing to be set somewhere around
1.2 to 2.0


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: Timestamp-based indexing
Next
From: "Harmon S. Nine"
Date:
Subject: Re: Timestamp-based indexing