Hervé Piedvache wrote:
> Le mardi 13 Juillet 2004 19:10, Josh Berkus a écrit :
>>>What can I do to get better results ?? (configuration option, and/or
>>>hardware update ?)
>>>What can I give you to get more important informations to help me ?
>>1) What PostgreSQL version are you using?
>>2) What's your VACUUM, ANALYZE, VACUUM FULL, REINDEX schedule?
> VACUUM FULL VERBOSE ANALYZE;
> Every day after the calculation I was talking about ...
>>3) Can you list the non-default settings in your PostgreSQL.conf?
>>Particularly, shared_buffers, sort_mem, checkpoint_segments,
>>estimated_cache, and max_fsm_pages?
> sort_mem = 512000
This is too much, you are instructing Postgres to use 512MB
for each backend ( some time each backend can use this quantity
more then one )
> vacuum_mem = 409600
> max_fsm_pages = 50000000
> max_fsm_relations = 2000
50 milions ? HUG.
what tell you postgres in the log after performing
a vacuum full ?
> max_files_per_process = 2000
> wal_buffers = 1000
> checkpoint_segments = 3
For massive insert you have to increase this number,
pump it up to 16
> effective_cache_size = 5000000
5GB for 8 GB system is too much
> random_page_cost = 3
on your HW you can decrease it to 2
and also decrease the other cpu costs
BTW, I live in Paris too, if you need a hand...
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Harmon S. Nine||Date: 2004-07-26 14:49:26|
|Subject: Timestamp-based indexing|
|Previous:||From: Gaetano Mendola||Date: 2004-07-26 14:12:31|
|Subject: Re: Insert are going slower ...|