Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning. - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Jennifer Trey
Subject Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.
Date
Msg-id 863606ec0904080924oa0f8196ha0d51d4f131f6a17@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.  (Scott Mead <scott.lists@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.
Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.
List pgsql-general
Tree view
Scott, thank you.

I think I might have misunderstood the effective cache size. Its measured in 8kB blocks. So the old number 449697 equals 3.5 GB, which is quite much. Should I lower this? I had plans to use 2.75GB max. Can I put 2.75GB there? Should I leave it?


Also, Greg. Since I use Java, prepared statements are quite natural. And I read this part on the guide which I understand you are part of : 

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-resource.html#GUC-MAX-PREPARED-TRANSACTIONS

Should I change this value? Not sure... :S 

Worried about the locks... whats your though on this? Should I just leave it alone?


Sincerely / Jennifer

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Scott Mead
Date:
Subject: Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.
Next
From: Sam Mason
Date:
Subject: Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table?