Try run postgresqltuner.pl as suggested on https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server and also look at the other info there.
After running a few days with live data run cache_hit_ratio.sql by Melvin Davidson: SELECT pg_stat_database.datname, pg_stat_database.blks_read, pg_stat_database.blks_hit, round((pg_stat_database.blks_hit::double precision / (pg_stat_database.blks_read + pg_stat_database.blks_hit +1)::double precision * 100::double precision)::numeric, 2) AS cachehitratio FROM pg_stat_database WHERE pg_stat_database.datname !~ '^(template(0|1)|postgres)$'::text ORDER BY round((pg_stat_database.blks_hit::double precision / (pg_stat_database.blks_read + pg_stat_database.blks_hit + 1)::double precision * 100::double precision)::numeric, 2) DESC; The real question is: Is your system slow? On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 5:14 AM Daulat Ram <daulat....@exponential.com> wrote: > Hi team, > > > > Can you please suggest what will be the suitable memory settings for > Postgresql11 if we have 80gb RAM, 16 CPU’s and OS Linux. > > > > If we set 25 % of total RAM then shared_buffers value will be 20GB. Will > it be useful or we can set it any random vale like 8g or 12gb. > > > > According to https://pgtune.leopard.in.ua/#/ > > below are the suggested memory values for 80gb RAM and 16 CPU. I assume > the values preferred for effective_cache_size = 60GB and shared_buffers = > 20GB are too large. > > > > max_connections = 500 > > shared_buffers = 20GB > > effective_cache_size = 60GB > > maintenance_work_mem = 2GB > > checkpoint_completion_target = 0.7 > > wal_buffers = 16MB > > default_statistics_target = 100 > > random_page_cost = 1.1 > > effective_io_concurrency = 300 > > work_mem = 6553kB > > min_wal_size = 1GB > > max_wal_size = 2GB > > max_worker_processes = 16 > > max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 8 > > max_parallel_workers = 16 > > > > Please give your suggestions. > > > > Regards, > > Daulat > > >