Josh Berkus wrote: > The problem: The update series (done as a function) takes 10-15 > minutes. During this time, the CPU is never more than 31% busy, only > 256mb of 512 is in use, and the disk channel is only 25% - 50% > saturated. As such, is seems like we could run things faster. > > What does everybody suggest tweaking? >
I think we'd need more information to be of any help -- schema, functions, explain output, etc. 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. You might also bump sort mem up a bit (maybe to 2048). Again, I would test using my app and hardware to get the best value. Are you on a Linux server -- if so I found that fdatasync works better than (the default) fsync for wal_sync_method. HTH, Joe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]