From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Hardware performance for large updates
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 20:57:40 -0700
Message-ID: <3D797934.7060001@joeconway.com> (raw)
References: <web-1635967@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Particularly, the difficulty is that this application gets many small
> requests during the day (100 simultaneous uses) and shares a server
> with Apache. So I have to be concerned about how much memory each
> connection soaks up, during the day. At night, the maintainence tasks
> run a few, really massive procedures.
>
> So I should probably restart Postgres with different settings at night,
> hey?
Actually, if you can afford the twice daily changes, it sounds like a
great idea. I think you can get new conf settings to take by sending a
SIGHUP to the postmaster, so you don't even really need any downtime to
do it. Yup, here it is:
http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?runtime-config.html>>I do think you probably could increase Shared Buffers, as 256 is
>>pretty small. There's been a lot of debate over the best setting. The
>>usual guidance is start at 25% of physical RAM (16384 == 128MB if you
>>have 512MB RAM), then tweak to optimize performance for your
>>application and hardware.
>
>
> Hmmm... how big is a shared buffer, anyway? I'm having trouble
> finding actual numbers in the docs.
By default it is 8K. It's mentioned here:
http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?kernel-resources.html
So, as I mentioned above, Shared Buffers of 16384 == 128MB if you have a
default 8K block size.
>>Are you on a Linux server -- if so I found that
>>fdatasync works better than (the default) fsync for wal_sync_method.
>
> Yes, I am. Any particular reason why fdatasync works better?
I can't remember the technical reason (although I've seen one on the
list before), but I have determined it empirically true, at least for my
setup. Ahh, here we go:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/1998-04/msg00326.php
Joe
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: mail@joeconway.com, josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: Hardware performance for large updates
In-Reply-To: <3D797934.7060001@joeconway.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