Re: PostgreSQL: YMMV? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From GH
Subject Re: PostgreSQL: YMMV?
Date
Msg-id 20010626000257.B71814@over-yonder.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: PostgreSQL: YMMV?  ("Dave Cramer" <Dave@micro-automation.net>)
List pgsql-general
(Why is this being CC'ed to everbody and their mothers?)

On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 12:25:15AM -0400, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
> 1GHz PIII 512MB ram, 40GB IDE UDMA 100, RH 2.4.5 kernel postgres 7.1.2
> straight from rpm. Jdbc built from cvs,  jdk 1.3 from sun
>
> Looks better, but I would still like to see improvement.

When you say "straight from rpm". Does that mean straight from rpm, or
have you altered the -B and sort cache settings? I would consider those
basic setup, based on what I have been hearing.
Setting -B (buffers, 8192b) to something more reasonable for your system
than the default would probably drastically improve your results. Also,
altering the sort cache setting may improve your results, but I'm not
familiar with that.
...unless I am way off base. Are you trying to prove something based on
the default PostgreSQL settings? I think that would be unfair to
PostgreSQL, which means well.

(Rumor has it that 1/4 system ram is a good round figure for -B total
size. Watch for falling SHMMAX though.)


gh

> Dave

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Dave Cramer"
Date:
Subject: RE: PostgreSQL: YMMV?
Next
From: Namrata
Date:
Subject: Stored procedures?