Re: The black art of postgresql.conf tweaking - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Gaetano Mendola
Subject Re: The black art of postgresql.conf tweaking
Date
Msg-id 4113CD75.2060508@bigfoot.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: The black art of postgresql.conf tweaking  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: The black art of postgresql.conf tweaking
List pgsql-performance
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Josh Berkus wrote:

| Paul,
|
|
|>>Physical Memory: 2077264 kB
|
|
|>>sort_mem = 12000
|
|
| Hmmm.  Someone may already have mentioned this, but that looks problematic.
| You're allowing up to 12MB per sort, and up to 300 connections.  Even if each
| concurrent connection averages only one sort (and they can use more) that's
| 3600MB ... roughly 1.5 times your *total* RAM, leaving out RAM for Apache,
| postmaster, shared buffers, etc.
|
| I strongly suggest that you either decrease your total connections or your
| sort_mem, or both.

Of course your are speaking about the "worst case", I aplly in scenarios like
this on the rule 80/20: 80% of connection will perform a sort and 20% will allocate
memory for the sort operation in the same window time:

300 -- 80% -->  240 --> 20% --> 48


48 * 12MB = 576 MB

that seems resonable with the total ammount of memory available.

Am I too optimistic?



Regards
Gaetano Mendola

















-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBE81z7UpzwH2SGd4RAuzzAJ98Ze0HQedKaZ/laT7P1OS44FG0CwCfaWkY
MAR1TEY1+x61PoXjK/K8Q4Y=
=8UmF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Mike Benoit
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance Bottleneck
Next
From: Martin Foster
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance Bottleneck