Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:18:55 +0200
From: Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer@spamfence.net>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance
Message-ID: <20110412171855.GA14292@tux>
References: <DF2D5436-117C-4D02-9B3C-A55723B7DDE1@darkstatic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <DF2D5436-117C-4D02-9B3C-A55723B7DDE1@darkstatic.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Ogden <lists@darkstatic.com> wrote:

> I have been wrestling with the configuration of the dedicated Postges 9.0.3
> server at work and granted, there's more activity on the production server, but
> the same queries take twice as long on the beefier server than my mac at home.
> I have pasted what I have changed in postgresql.conf - I am wondering if
> there's any way one can help me change things around to be more efficient.
> 
> Dedicated PostgreSQL 9.0.3 Server with 16GB Ram
> 
> Heavy write and read (for reporting and calculations) server. 
> 
> max_connections = 350 
> shared_buffers = 4096MB  
> work_mem = 32MB
> maintenance_work_mem = 512MB

That's okay.


> 
> 
> seq_page_cost = 0.02                    # measured on an arbitrary scale
> random_page_cost = 0.03 

Do you have super, Super, SUPER fast disks? I think, this (seq_page_cost
and random_page_cost) are completly wrong.


> cpu_tuple_cost = 0.02  
> effective_cache_size = 8192MB
> 
> 
> 
> The planner costs seem a bit low but this was from suggestions from this very
> list a while ago. 

Sure? Can you tell us a link into the archive?


Andreas
-- 
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect.                              (Linus Torvalds)
"If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly."   (unknown)
Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe.              N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°