From: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
To: Alexy Khrabrov <deliverable@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: two memory-consuming postgres processes
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:22:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0805021619380.18755@westnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A728C858-76CF-473F-917B-3C9EA4AA75CF@gmail.com>
References: <A728C858-76CF-473F-917B-3C9EA4AA75CF@gmail.com>
On Fri, 2 May 2008, Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
> I have an UPDATE query updating a 100 million row table, and
> allocate enough memory via shared_buffers=1500MB.
In addition to reducing that as you've been advised, you'll probably need
to increase checkpoint_segments significantly from the default (3) in
order to get good performance on an update that large. Something like 30
would be a reasonable starting point.
I'd suggest doing those two things, seeing how things go, and reporting
back if you still think performance is unacceptable. We'd need to know
your PostgreSQL version in order to really target future suggestions.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: gsmith@gregsmith.com, deliverable@gmail.com
Subject: Re: two memory-consuming postgres processes
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0805021619380.18755@westnet.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox