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 341EB9DCAA5 for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 12:26:05 -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 63769-08 for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 12:26:02 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mx2.surnet.cl (mx2.surnet.cl [216.155.73.181]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7989DCA94 for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 12:26:01 -0400 (AST) Received: from unknown (HELO cluster.surnet.cl) ([216.155.73.165]) by mx2.surnet.cl with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2005 13:25:55 -0300 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.99,209,1131332400"; d="scan'208"; a="3107353:sNHT279113356" Received: from alvh.no-ip.org (201.220.122.225) by cluster.surnet.cl (7.0.043) (authenticated as alvherre@surnet.cl) id 438E66E800052B19; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:26:00 -0300 Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E5291C3A055; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:26:42 -0300 (CLST) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:26:42 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Michael Riess Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 15,000 tables - next step Message-ID: <20051203162642.GA29022@surnet.cl> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Riess , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <4391BF0F.9000208@Yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.481 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.438, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44] X-Spam-Score: 1.481 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200512/99 X-Sequence-Number: 15920 Michael Riess wrote: > Shared memory ... I currently use 1500 buffers for 50 connections, and > performance really suffered when I used 3000 buffers. The problem is > that it is a 1GB machine, and Apache + Tomcat need about 400MB. Well, I'd think that's were your problem is. Not only you have a (relatively speaking) small server -- you also share it with other very-memory-hungry services! That's not a situation I'd like to be in. Try putting Apache and Tomcat elsewhere, and leave the bulk of the 1GB to Postgres. With 1500 shared buffers you are not really going anywhere -- you should have ten times that at the very least. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support