Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 777079FA248 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:29:11 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17864-04 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:29:02 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from net2.micro-automation.com (net2.micro-automation.com [64.7.141.29]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E11649F9856 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:29:00 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 31089 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2007 15:28:59 -0000 Received: from dcdsl.ebox.com (HELO ?192.168.1.14?) (davec@64.7.143.116) by net2.micro-automation.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 2007 15:28:59 -0000 In-Reply-To: <45A077FB.3010802@burntmail.com> References: <45935A49.6080602@burntmail.com> <459F0EA6.30403@burntmail.com> <45A077FB.3010802@burntmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <86E1D954-72CB-4744-BF53-A7CB57623D83@fastcrypt.com> Cc: PostgreSQL Performance Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dave Cramer Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:29:02 -0500 To: Guy Rouillier X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200701/86 X-Sequence-Number: 22687 On 6-Jan-07, at 11:32 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote: > Dave Cramer wrote: > >>> >>> The box has 3 GB of memory. I would think that BigDBMS would be >>> hurt by this more than PG. Here are the settings I've modified >>> in postgresql.conf: >> As I said you need to set shared_buffers to at least 750MB this is >> the starting point, it can actually go higher. Additionally >> effective cache should be set to 2.25 G turning fsync is not a >> real world situation. Additional tuning of file systems can >> provide some gain, however as Craig pointed out some queries may >> need to be tweaked. > > Dave, thanks for the hard numbers, I'll try them. I agree turning > fsync off is not a production option. In another reply to my > original posting, Alex mentioned that BigDBMS gets an advantage > from its async IO. So simply as a test, I turned fsync off in an > attempt to open wide all the pipes. > > Regarding shared_buffers=750MB, the last discussions I remember on > this subject said that anything over 10,000 (8K buffers = 80 MB) > had unproven benefits. So I'm surprised to see such a large value > suggested. I'll certainly give it a try and see what happens. That is 25% of your available memory. This is just a starting point. There are reports that going as high as 50% can be advantageous, however you need to measure it yourself. > >>> >>> autovacuum=on >>> stats_row_level = on >>> max_connections = 10 >>> listen_addresses = 'db01,localhost' >>> shared_buffers = 128MB >>> work_mem = 16MB >>> maintenance_work_mem = 64MB >>> temp_buffers = 32MB >>> max_fsm_pages = 204800 >>> checkpoint_segments = 30 >>> redirect_stderr = on >>> log_line_prefix = '%t %d' > -- > Guy Rouillier > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >