X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E8B52801 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2005 21:52:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44621-05 for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 00:52:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from calvin.surfutopia.net (calvin.surfutopia.net [67.120.245.34]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3143452812 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2005 21:52:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: by calvin.surfutopia.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9D8DCF24B; Fri, 1 Jul 2005 17:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 17:52:37 -0700 From: John Mendenhall To: Dennis Bjorklund Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: ported application having performance issues Message-ID: <20050702005237.GA26087@calvin.surfutopia.net> References: <20050630235821.GA2163@calvin.surfutopia.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/7 X-Sequence-Number: 13248 Dennis, On Fri, 01 Jul 2005, Dennis Bjorklund wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, John Mendenhall wrote: > > > Our setting for effective_cache_size is 2048. > > > > random_page_cost = 4, effective_cache_size = 2048 time approximately 4500ms > > random_page_cost = 3, effective_cache_size = 2048 time approximately 1050ms > > random_page_cost = 3, effective_cache_size = 4096 time approximately 1025ms > > The effective_cache_size still looks small. As a rule of tumb you might > want effective_cache_size to be something like 1/2 or 2/3 of your total > memory. I don't know how much you had, but effective_cache_size = 4096 is > only 32M. > > shared_buffers and effective_cache_size is normally the two most important > settings in my experience. I have increased the effective_cache_size to 16384 (128M). I have kept random_page_cost at 3 for now. This appears to give me the performance I need at this time. In the future, we'll look at other methods of increasing the performance. Thank you all for all your suggestions. JohnM -- John Mendenhall john@surfutopia.net surf utopia internet services