On Thu, 2002-01-24 at 20:47, Peter T. Brown wrote:
That helps a great deal! I am learning about the 'run-fast' option in
postgres: Increasing the shared_buffers is critical. Here is a copy of my
postgresql.conf file. I'll make the increases you suggested, but is there
anything else you can
Radu-Adrian Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I belive you should set
fsync=false
in case you mainly select and do inserts rather rare.
No, that's a really horrid reason to turn off fsync. A read-only
transaction never syncs and thus has no fsync penalty. If update
performance isn't a
Peter T. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there any BIG risk in turning fsync off?
No, I wouldn't say so if you consider your data noncritical. fsync is
for stuff like orders and bank accounts, where losing even one
committed transaction is not acceptable.
And isn't there some way to use
, January 25, 2002 7:24 AM
To: Radu-Adrian Popescu
Cc: Peter T. Brown; Postgres Admin List
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Maximum Performance Follow-up Question
Radu-Adrian Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I belive you should set
fsync=false
in case you mainly select and do inserts rather rare
But how can Postgres be 'forced' to keep a table in memory? I've noticed
that on our Dual Pentium4, 1GB RAM machine, the size of the individual
postgres threads is very small. Top reports it as like 5K or 20K (I believe
that's what it means). Shouldn't this number be 100's of MB if postgres is
Peter T. Brown wrote:
But how can Postgres be 'forced' to keep a table in memory? I've noticed
that on our Dual Pentium4, 1GB RAM machine, the size of the individual
postgres threads is very small. Top reports it as like 5K or 20K (I believe
that's what it means). Shouldn't this number be
Peter T. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But how can Postgres be 'forced' to keep a table in memory? I've noticed
that on our Dual Pentium4, 1GB RAM machine, the size of the individual
postgres threads is very small. Top reports it as like 5K or 20K (I believe
that's what it means). Shouldn't
I would keep an eye on backend's mem usage, don't let them get out of memory
nor go to swap.
I would consider increasing wal_files, i think postmaster is telling you every
minute
hope it helps
Regards
begin:vcard
n:Amigo Navarro;Luis Alberto
tel;cell:609581857
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
Huveneers'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Maximum Performance Follow-up Question
Peter T. Brown wrote:
But how can Postgres be 'forced' to keep a table in memory? I've noticed
that on our Dual Pentium4, 1GB RAM machine, the size of the individual
postgres threads is very small. Top
Luis Amigo wrote:
I would keep an eye on backend's mem usage, don't let them get out of memory
nor go to swap.
I would consider increasing wal_files, i think postmaster is telling you every
minute
Actually, checkpoint_segments is the critical parameter when you have
lots of activity and are
Related question regarding this config file and some other suggestions in this
thread. I have a similar configuration that I'm constantly tuning based on my
experience and comments I read in various places. So far, based on what I
learned these parameters would seem way to high for 1GB
11 matches
Mail list logo
