On 9/6/16 2:08 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9
Too high of a checkpoint completion target may cause buffers to get
written out more often than needed. but it varies based on load etc.
The odds on that don't seem to be terribly high. Even if that is a
common occurre
On 9/2/2016 8:38 PM, Pradeep wrote:
... In task bar it is showing 2.7GB Utilization ...
odd, the task bar doesn't show any sort of memory utilization on any of
my windows systems.are you referring instead to the Task Manager ?
Note the Windows Task Manager by default doesn't show shared
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Pradeep wrote:
> Dear Naveed,
>
> I am using PostgreSQL 9.3 version on Windows .After changing these
> parameters, I have not seen any resource management utilization.
>
> I have observed before and after changing the parameter values ,it is not
> reflecting the m
>
> Thanks & Regards
>
> Pradeep Kanth
>
> Ext : 3026
>
>
>
> *From:* Naveed Shaikh [mailto:naveed.sha...@enterprisedb.com]
> *Sent:* 06 September, 2016 11:22 PM
> *To:* Pradeep
> *Cc:* pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> *Subject:* Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL D
.
So kindly let me ,whether it will impact the RAM utilization or not?
Thanks & Regards
Pradeep Kanth
Ext : 3026
From: Naveed Shaikh [mailto:naveed.sha...@enterprisedb.com]
Sent: 06 September, 2016 11:22 PM
To: Pradeep
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgr
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Pradeep wrote:
>>>
>>> max_connections = 100
>>> shared_buffers = 512MB
>>> effective_cache_size = 24GB
>>> work_mem = 110100kB
>>
>> This is WAY too h
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Pradeep wrote:
> Dear Team,
>
>
>
> Could you please help me, after changing the below parameters in
> PostgreSQL configuration file it was not reflecting in OS level and also
> Database performance is degrading.
>
What were they before you changed them?
Do you
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Pradeep wrote:
>>
>> max_connections = 100
>> shared_buffers = 512MB
>> effective_cache_size = 24GB
>> work_mem = 110100kB
>
> This is WAY too high for work_mem. Work_mem is how much memory a
> single sort
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Pradeep wrote:
> Dear Team,
>
>
>
> Could you please help me, after changing the below parameters in PostgreSQL
> configuration file it was not reflecting in OS level and also Database
> performance is degrading.
>
>
>
> Example: I am using Windows 2008 R2 server .F
o:pgsql-general-owner@
> postgresql.org] *On Behalf Of *Pradeep
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 03, 2016 6:39 AM
> *To:* pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> *Subject:* [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Database performance
>
ns.com/> http://www.jetbrains.com
The Drive to Develop
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Pradeep
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 6:39 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Database performance
Which version of PostgreSQL are you using on your windows?
Increasing work_mem can lead to far less disk-swapping, and therefore far
quicker queries. However, it can cause problems if set too high, and should
be constrained taking into account max_connections. The following
calculation is what is
Dear Team,
Could you please help me, after changing the below parameters in PostgreSQL
configuration file it was not reflecting in OS level and also Database
performance is degrading.
Example: I am using Windows 2008 R2 server .For PostgreSQL I have allocated
24GB RAM out of 32GB.
However
13 matches
Mail list logo
