X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2EFDB9AD for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:15:28 -0400 (AST) 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 87380-08 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:15:30 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.193]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0ADDBA00 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:15:25 -0400 (AST) Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id z3so55969nzf for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:15:28 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qITIMSdlJRNqYFWXCfyQ1LqLZ64xl+V0ulBSmriB61/AXW+ISRD0QFzX3nQoC/QRGhi/93wR4qJhGlmfpRskRsaablpKCXeOeFFTEDEIYKs3xmVrJNCOns3TPUOQHfDaQG9acsKI8s5I0Ape3/O8+0HCb2dYIqSGSjFeEfzSBBg= Received: by 10.65.191.13 with SMTP id t13mr274719qbp; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:15:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.192.16 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:15:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 01:15:28 +0100 From: Claus Guttesen To: Guillaume Smet Subject: Re: weird performances problem Cc: Andrew Sullivan , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <437D13AA.4010309@openwide.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <437CC21D.8070402@openwide.fr> <20051117221314.GC26696@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <437D13AA.4010309@openwide.fr> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/340 X-Sequence-Number: 15597 > I forgot to give our non default postgresql.conf parameters: > shared_buffers =3D 28800 > sort_mem =3D 32768 > vacuum_mem =3D 32768 > max_fsm_pages =3D 350000 > max_fsm_relations =3D 2000 > checkpoint_segments =3D 16 > effective_cache_size =3D 270000 > random_page_cost =3D 2 Isn't sort_mem quite high? Remember that sort_mem size is allocated for each sort, not for each connection. Mine is 4096 (4 MB). My effective_cache_size is set to 27462. What OS are you running? regards Claus