On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Daniel Seichter wrote:
> > >
> > > > Today memory isn't expensive so with 512MB I can be shure, every user on
> > > > this server might have enough to work without any timeout or waiting times
> > > > greater then 2 seconds.
> > >
> > > If the database is at all large, you really want more memory than that.
> > > I have a really quite large DB, but I am *really* struggling with 1GB
> >
> > We went from 512 Meg to 1.5 Gig and the change was tremendous. That box
> > ran Apache/Postgresql/auth_ldap/LDAP and now has 800 Meg of cache mem and
> > about 120 Megs of buffer routinely. I'd heartily recommend even a jump
> > from just 1 to 1.5 gig if you can make it.
>
> I want either a seperate (high-ish spec, high memory) box, or to not
> have to use my workstation as a server :) But I don't think my employers
> will put any more money into this project until it's fully finished.
Well, always look at memory and drives. If you can add memory to your
workstation is will be a much faster server. Adding drives into a RAID1
1+0 or 5 set can provide a performance increase too.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
