Message-ID: <50B4C67C.1040802@dunslane.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:56:12 -0500
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Syed Asif Tanveer <asif.tanveer@analytics.com.pk>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres configuration for 8 CPUs, 6 GB RAM
References: <000601cdcc73$69f82d70$3de88850$@analytics.com.pk>
In-Reply-To: <000601cdcc73$69f82d70$3de88850$@analytics.com.pk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org


On 11/27/2012 02:47 AM, Syed Asif Tanveer wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am using PostgreSQL 9.1.5 for Data warehousing and OLAP puposes. 
> Data size is around 100 GB and I have tuned my PostgreSQL accordingly 
> still I am facing performance issues. The query performance is too low 
> despite tables being properly indexed and are vacuumed and analyzed at 
> regular basis. CPU usage never exceeded 15% even at peak usage times. 
> Kindly guide me through if there are any mistakes in setting 
> configuration parameters. Below are my system specs and please find 
> attached my postgresql configuration parameters for current system.
>
>


There is at least anecdotal evidence that Windows servers degrade when 
shared_buffers is set above 512Mb. Personally, I would not recommend 
using Windows for a high performance server.

Also, it makes no sense to have a lower setting for maintenance_work_mem 
than for work_mem. You would normally expect maintenance_work_mem to be 
higher - sometimes much higher.

Apart from that, it's going to be impossible to tell what your problem 
is without seeing actual slow running queries and their corresponding 
explain analyse output.

cheers

andrew


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance