X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B4A9DCC68 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:21:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37085-04 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:21:17 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com [63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301809DCC66 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:21:13 -0400 (AST) Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com ([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:21:16 +0000 Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com; 17 Mar 2006 17:21:16 -0600 Subject: Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & From: Scott Marlowe To: Claus Guttesen Cc: Kenji Morishige , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: References: <20060317221116.GA14661@juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1142637675.1141.38.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:21:16 -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.147 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.146, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] X-Spam-Score: 0.147 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/296 X-Sequence-Number: 17733 On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 17:03, Claus Guttesen wrote: > > Here is my current configuration: > > Also, I may be overlooking a postgresql.conf setting. I have attached the > > config file. > > You could try to lower shared_buffers from 30000 to 16384. Setting > this value too high can in some cases be counterproductive according > to doc's I read. FYI, that was very true before 8.0, but since the introduction of better cache management algorithms, you can have pretty big shared_buffers settings. > Also try to lower work_mem from 16384 to 8192 or 4096. This setting is > for each sort, so it does become expensive in terms of memory when > many sorts are being carried out. It does depend on the complexity of > your sorts of course. But looking at his usage of RAM on his box, it doesn't look like one at the time that snapshot was taken. Assuming the box was busy then, he's OK. Otherwise, he'd show a usage of swapping, which he doesn't.