Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 09:35:14AM +0100, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
shared_buffer = 12000
effective_cache_size = 25000
This would mean you are reserving 100M for Postgres to cache relation
pages, and informing the planner that it can expect ~200M available
from the disk buffer cache. To give a better recommendation, we need
Ok, thanks. I wanted to investigate this field, but as the
application is multithreaded and uses a lot of postgres clients,
I wanted to make sure the shared_buffers values is globally for
postgres, not just per (TCP) connection to postgres, before
increasing the value, fearing to take the whole server down.
shared_buffer is for the entire 'cluster', not per-connection or
per-database.
Also, effective_cache_size of 25000 on a 1G machine seems pretty
conservative to me. I'd set it to at least 512MB, if not closer to
800MB.
I was going to recommend higher - but not knowing what else was running,
kept it to quite conservative :-)... and given he's running java, the
JVM could easily eat 512M all by itself!
Cheers
Mark
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
