Re: tuning our database by increasing shared buffer - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Allgood, John
Subject Re: tuning our database by increasing shared buffer
Date
Msg-id 82E499DEBAB95F4E91140984379FB1C6710D5D@NOC-ML-09.ohlogistics.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to tuning our database by increasing shared buffer  (Barbara Stephenson <barbara@turbocorp.com>)
List pgsql-admin

Hello All

 

I am working with  Barbara on this project and I am curios about what would be a good starting place for setting the max_fsm_relations and max_fsm_pages. Here are the current values max_fsm_pages = 153600 and the max_fsm_relations is set to the default of 1000. I have have read that the output from vacuum can help determine the values. We are using the autovacuum daemon. Is there some logging from that process that could help.

 

Thanks

 

 

John Allgood

Senior Systems Administrator

Turbo, division of OHL

2251 Jesse Jewell Pky. NE

Gainesville, GA 30507

tel: (678) 989-3051  fax: (770) 531-7878

 

jallgood@ohl.com

www.ohl.com

 

From: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Barbara Stephenson
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:43 PM
To: Tom Lane
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] tuning our database by increasing shared buffer

 

Thank ypu!


Tom Lane wrote:

Barbara Stephenson <barbara@turbocorp.com> writes:
  
We will be consolidating from 4 databases to 2 and want to make sure that  
these parameters are the only ones that need changing.   Please advise.
    
 
  
Current                                                        Future
=====                                                          =====
Max_connection = 50                                    125
Shared_buffers = 16MB                                  48MB
    
 
You will need to make sure that the FSM size parameters are correct for
the combined databases, too.
 
  
Shouldn't we increase the max_locks_per_transaction from 64 to 100 or 128 
since we have more than doubled the # of connections?
    
 
No, because the lock table size automatically scales with
max_connections.  (Probably max_locks_per_transaction should have been
called max_locks_per_connection ...)
 
  
max_prepared_transaction is set at default of 5 which is says if we use it to
set it to max_connection.
    
 
Are you using prepared transactions at all?  If not, I'd actually
recommend setting that to zero to make sure nobody creates a prepared
transaction accidentally.  You do *not* want anyone doing PREPARE
TRANSACTION unless there's an XA manager or something in place to make
sure the prepared xact gets committed or rolled back reasonably soon.
 
                       regards, tom lane
 
  

 

--

Regards,
 
Barbara Stephenson
EDI Specialist/Programmer
Turbo, division of OHL
2251 Jesse Jewell Pkwy
Gainesville, GA  30507
tel: (678)989-3020 fax: (404)935-6171
barbara@turbocorp.com
www.ohl.com

______________________________________________________

This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary, privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the intended recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or their designee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies.

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Kenneth Marshall
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL archiving and backup TAR
Next
From: Glyn Astill
Date:
Subject: Re: tuning our database by increasing shared buffer