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 BD4745288E for ; Tue, 31 May 2005 13:37:03 -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 09962-02 for ; Tue, 31 May 2005 16:36:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.201]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A30C52876 for ; Tue, 31 May 2005 13:36:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so3591697wra for ; Tue, 31 May 2005 09:36:50 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=myhouN9DaVsTNJo6rjCavuwJLzdYfC+PCJUO/yIi2/YWvIRL+VwfS9DoxPTzTGp6CkBrbAxDSlS0QbHOT1oxS9rQaOzISliSVtvOdE11r0pDTdYqrHpg7AtkI+F2DU+9v7xs9tJj/p4hT9y5Y0NIV72wiXI0x7QrFGEoOOhItLI= Received: by 10.54.54.56 with SMTP id c56mr6766042wra; Tue, 31 May 2005 09:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.2.45 with HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2005 09:36:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4a0cafe2050531093631c725e3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 11:36:49 -0500 From: Josh Close Reply-To: Josh Close To: POSTGRES-PERFORMANCE Subject: Re: slow queries, possibly disk io In-Reply-To: <1117551659.7612.85.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <4a0cafe20505310617d803a0c@mail.gmail.com> <1117551659.7612.85.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.304 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, RCVD_BY_IP X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200505/470 X-Sequence-Number: 12634 On 5/31/05, Martin Fandel wrote: > In the documentation of > http://www.powerpostgresql.com/Downloads/annotated_conf_80.html > is the shared_buffers set to 1/3 of the availble RAM. You're set > 50000*8/1024=3D391 MB SHMEM. The effective_cache_size in your > configuration is 450000*8/1024=3D3516 MB SHMEM. That's 3907MB > of RAM but you have less than 2048MB availble. I wrote that wrong, there is actually 4 gigs of ram available. >=20 > What value do you have in /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax? >=20 > I'm really new at using postgres and i have not many experience > but maybe you can try to use 1/3 (682MB/87424)for shared_buffers > and 2/3 (1365MB/174720) for the effective_cache_size? But i these > settings are to high too. >=20 > best regards > Martin