Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2003 at 22:54, Martin Foster wrote:
>
>>What I would like to know is. Why? The kernel has been compiled to
>>handle the number of concurrent connections, the server may not be the
>>best, but it should be able to handle the requests: PIII 1Ghz, 1GB
>>SDRAM, 2 IDE 20GB drives.
>>
>>I have changed settings to take advantage of the memory. So the
>>following settings are of interest:
>> shared_buffers = 16384
>> wal_buffers = 256
>> sort_mem = 16384
>> vacuum_mem = 32768
>
>
> As somebody else has already pointed out, your sort_mem is bit too high
> than required. Try lowering it.
>
> Secondly did you tune effective_cache_size?
>
> HTH
> Bye
> Shridhar
>
> --
> Power, n.: The only narcotic regulated by the SEC instead of the FDA.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
I dropped the size of the sort_mem down to 8 megs. Since I am not
swapping to cache at all this should not post much of a problem at that
value.
effective_cache_size seems interesting, though the description is
somewhat lacking. Is this related to the swap partition and how much of
it will be used by PostgreSQL? If I am correct, this should be fairly low?
Martin Foster
Creator/Designer Ethereal Realms
martin@ethereal-realms.org
