Re: MySQL versus Postgres - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: MySQL versus Postgres
Date
Msg-id AANLkTinuuC_bWSmjp1RPLsZna5xcogrUKbWb3ackWTy1@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: MySQL versus Postgres  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: MySQL versus Postgres
List pgsql-general
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Sandeep Srinivasa wrote:
>>
>>  Maybe a tabular form would be nice - "work_mem" under...
>
> The problem with work_mem in particular is that the useful range depends
> quite a bit on how complicated you expect the average query running to be.

And it's very dependent on max connections.  A machine with 512GB that
runs batch processes for one or two import processes and then has
another two or three used to query it can run much higher work_mem
than a machine with 32G set to handle hundreds of concurrent accesses.
 Don't forget that when you set work_mem to high it has a very sharp
dropoff in performance as swapping starts to occur.  If work_mem is a
little low, queries run 2 or 3 times slower.  If it's too high the
machine can grind to a halt.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Ma Sivakumar
Date:
Subject: Re: MySQL versus Postgres
Next
From: Georgi Ivanov
Date:
Subject: Is there a way too speed up Limit with high OFFSET ?