Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: "Justin Long" <justinlong@strategicnetwork.org>,
	<pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Optimization
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:27:44 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
References: <000f01c35523$f13dee90$ecd36044@tarzan>
In-Reply-To: <000f01c35523$f13dee90$ecd36044@tarzan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200307281227.44072.josh@agliodbs.com>

Justin,

> I am trying to understand the various factors used by Postgres to optimiz=
e.=20
I presently have a dual-866 Dell server with 1GB of memory. I've done the=
=20
following:

see: http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/index.php
which has articles on .conf files.
(feel free to link these articles at PHPbuilder.com and elsewhere!)

> The databases I'm using have about 200,000+ news headlines with full-text=
=20
indexes (which range upwards of a few million records). They are updated=20
about every 5 to 10 minutes, which means I also have to run a vacuum about=
=20
once every 2 to 3 hours at least. As I get more updates obviously the=20
efficiency goes down. I'm trying to make the most of this system but don't=
=20
fully understand PG's optimization stuff.

Unless you're running PostgreSQL 7.1 or earlier, you should be VACUUMing ev=
ery=20
10-15 minutes, not every 2-3 hours.   Regular VACUUM does not lock your=20
database.  You will also want to increase your FSM_relations so that VACUUM=
=20
is more effective/efficient; again, see the articles.

--=20
-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco