Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Christopher Kings-Lynne
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results
Date
Msg-id GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOMEICCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results  (Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>)
List pgsql-advocacy
> > Machine:
> > 256MB RAM, FreeBSD 4.7, EIDE HDD, > 1 Ghz
>
> Seems like a small amount of memory to be memory based tests with.

Perhaps, but I'm benchmarking for that machine, not for any other.  The
results have to include the 256MB spec.

Also, the peak was 25MB of SHM, which still leave 231MB for the rest of the
system, so surely RAM is not the bottleneck here?

> What about testing sort_mem as well. It would system to me that there
> would be no negative to having infinite sort_mem given infinite memory,
> though.

Yeah, however I'm pretty sure that pgbench doesn't perform any sorts.

I reckon that sort_mem is the hardest thing to optimise1

Chris


pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:
Next
From: "Shridhar Daithankar"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks