Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF224761DD; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:54:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (momjian.navpoint.com [207.106.42.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40915476128; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:54:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id h0R0sP721325; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:54:25 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200301270054.h0R0sP721325@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] optimizing query In-Reply-To: <25976.1043335579@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:54:25 -0500 (EST) Cc: Chantal Ackermann , Stephan Szabo , pgsql-general@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/1102 X-Sequence-Number: 36223 Tom Lane wrote: > > postgresql.conf: > > shared_buffers: 121600 > > max_connections: 64 > > max_fsm_relations = 200 > > max_fsm_pages = 40000 > > effective_cache_size = 8000 > > Try increasing sort_mem. > > Also, I'd back off on shared_buffers if I were you. There's no evidence > that values above a few thousand buy anything. Increasing shared_buffers above several thousand will only be a win if your entire working set will fit in the larger buffer pool, but didn't in the previous size. If you working set is smaller or larger than that, pushing it above several thousand isn't a win. Is that a more definitive answer? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073