Re: performance tuning in large function / transaction - Mailing list pgsql-sql

From Christopher Kings-Lynne
Subject Re: performance tuning in large function / transaction
Date
Msg-id GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOAEMGCAAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: performance tuning in large function / transaction  (Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>)
Responses Re: performance tuning in large function / transaction
List pgsql-sql
Hmmm...

I have a database server for a website for which I am 'dedicating' at least
128MB of ram (I could say that it can have 256MB)

I have max_connections 64
and shared_buffers 256
and sort_mem 1024

Is that really small?

I have this SHM config:

options         SYSVSHM
options         SYSVMSG
options         SYSVSEM

options         SHMMAXPGS=16384         # 64MB shared mem?
#options        SHMALL=1025             # max kb of shared mem
options         SHMSEG=256              # 256 shared segs per proc

options         SEMMNI=256              # 256 semaphore identifiers
options         SEMMNS=512              # 512 semaphores in the system
options         SEMMNU=256              # 256 undo structures in system
options         SEMMAP=256              # 256 entries in semaphore map

How do you calculate the shared memory required by postgres given the
shared_buffers value???

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Stephan Szabo
> Sent: Friday, 14 December 2001 11:02 AM
> To: MindTerm
> Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [SQL] performance tuning in large function / transaction
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, MindTerm wrote:
>
> >   I am writing a function (plpgsql) which equals to a
> > single transaction transaction in postgresql ( as I
> > known ). So I think that it is not a autocommmit mode.
> >
> >   I have add following lines in postgresql.conf.
> >
> > postgresql.conf:
> > ====================
> > shared_buffers = 640
> > wal_buffers = 80
>
> It depends on how much memory you have, but even 640 is pretty
> low (I think that works out to 5M).  Probably a few thousand
> is better if you've got the ram.
>
>
> ---------------------------(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
>



pgsql-sql by date:

Previous
From: MindTerm
Date:
Subject: Re: performance tuning in large function / transaction
Next
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: performance tuning in large function / transaction