X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D108ED88E8 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:00:11 -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 33593-09 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:00:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from newman.lshift.net (host226.lshift.net [195.172.218.226]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A64D8912 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:00:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 16630 invoked by uid 1004); 1 Sep 2005 22:00:08 -0000 Received: from 10.224.189.77 by newman (envelope-from , uid 64011) with qmail-scanner-1.24 (clamdscan: 0.80/627. Clear:RC:1(10.224.189.77):. Processed in 0.013884 secs); 01 Sep 2005 22:00:08 -0000 Received: from ponder.lshift.net (HELO localhost) ([10.224.189.77]) (envelope-sender ) by newman.lshift.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 1 Sep 2005 22:00:07 -0000 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:00:07 +0100 From: Matthew Sackman To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Massive performance issues Message-ID: <20050901220007.GE7131@pongo.lshift.net> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <20050901174231.GE23970@pongo.lshift.net> <43176A95.70506@tweakers.net> <20050901211359.GD7131@pongo.lshift.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.262 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.112, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.374] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/30 X-Sequence-Number: 14338 On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:26:47PM -0700, Jeff Frost wrote: > >Well I've got 1GB of RAM, but from analysis of its use, a fair amount > >isn't being used. About 50% is actually in use by applications and about > >half of the rest is cache and the rest isn't being used. Has this to do > >with the max_fsm_pages and max_fsm_relations settings? I've pretty much > >not touched the configuration and it's the standard Debian package. > > Matt, have a look at the annotated postgresql.conf for 7.x here: > > http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/annotated_conf_e.html > > If you have the default settings, you're likely hampering yourself quite a > bit. You probably care about shared_buffers, sort_mem, > vacuum_mem, max_fsm_pages, effective_cache_size That's a useful resource, thanks for the pointer. I'll work through that tomorrow. > Also, you may want to read the PostgreSQL 8.0 Performance Checklist. Even > though it's for 8.0, it'll give you good ideas on what to change in 7.4. > You can find it here: http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList/ Thanks, another good resource. I'll work through that too. Matthew