On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Jennifer Trey wrote:
shared_buffer = 1024MB # Kept it
As mentioned a couple of times here, this is a really large setting for
Windows. Something like 256MB would work better, and you might even find
some people making a case for 64MB or less on Windows. I don't really
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Jennifer Trey wrote:
> I would like to further tune the tuning wizards recommendations though. I
> think it put itself on the lower scale.
OK, instead of blindly guessing at better values, and making a lot of
concurrent changes, you need to set up some kind of sim
Jennifer Trey wrote:
Scott, thank you.
I think I might have misunderstood the effective cache size. Its
measured in 8kB blocks. So the old number 449697 equals 3.5 GB, which
is quite much. Should I lower this? I had plans to use 2.75GB max. Can
I put 2.75GB there? Should I leave it?
effecti
Well, no.. I don't know that. But in a worst case scenario, where everything
is using max, there won't be 3.5 GB for the OS. But for the OS + Postgre
(combined) there will be 2.5 + 2.75 .. But it seems that there is no
greater danger in the effective cache, but a good setting would be nice :)
Is t
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Jennifer Trey wrote:
> I think I might have misunderstood the effective cache size. Its measured in
> 8kB blocks. So the old number 449697 equals 3.5 GB, which is quite much.
> Should I lower this? I had plans to use 2.75GB max. Can I put 2.75GB there?
> Should I
Scott, thank you.
I think I might have misunderstood the effective cache size. Its measured in
8kB blocks. So the old number 449697 equals 3.5 GB, which is quite much.
Should I lower this? I had plans to use 2.75GB max. Can I put 2.75GB there?
Should I leave it?
Also, Greg. Since I use Java, pre
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Jennifer Trey wrote:
> max_connections = 150 # A comprimise :)
>
> Scott, you mentioned :
>
> You can also use the pg_stat_all_indexes table to look at index scans
> vs. tuples being read, this can sometimes hint at index 'bloat'. I
> would also recommend pg_stattu
max_connections = 150 # A comprimise :)
effective_cache_size = 2048MB # Old value 439MB --> Even older : 128MB
#Is this too high?
maintenance_work_mem = 96MB # Old 16MB. Would 64MB be better? Updates
and therefore re-indexing of tuples happens quite frequently.
work_mem = 3MB
# Old was 1MB!? Tha
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Massa, Harald Armin wrote:
"documenting" that for the wiki is still on my backlog; so, here:
shared_buffers of PostgreSQL on Windows != shared_buffers of PostgreSQL on Unix
There's already comments about that in the shared_buffers section of
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Massa, Harald Armin wrote:
> Bill, Jennifer,
>
> > *shared_buffers = 1024 # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB ## Also to
>> low.
>> > Right? I've got 3GB to work with!*
>>
>> Assuming that's equating to 1G, then the value is about right. Common
>> best practice i
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to Jennifer Trey :
>
>
> > *maintenance_work_mem = 16384 *
If your vacuums and / or create index are taking ages, considering a
higher value here may be useful. I would need to know more about the
database before suggesting tho
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to Jennifer Trey :
> >
> > I have 8GB memory, Intel Quad Core 2.4Ghz with 8MB L2 cache. I am running
> > Windows Web Server 2008 x64 and will be running a Java (64 bit version)
> > application.
> >
> > I want to give the java app roo
Bill, Jennifer,
> *shared_buffers = 1024 # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB ## Also to
> low.
> > Right? I've got 3GB to work with!*
>
> Assuming that's equating to 1G, then the value is about right. Common
> best practice is to set this value to 1/4 - 1/3 of the memory available
> for PostgreS
In response to Jennifer Trey :
>
> I have 8GB memory, Intel Quad Core 2.4Ghz with 8MB L2 cache. I am running
> Windows Web Server 2008 x64 and will be running a Java (64 bit version)
> application.
>
> I want to give the java app room for working on 2-3GB. The operating system
> is currently cons
Ok,
I have left the previous thread. After changing the last permissions, even
though it said Access Denied, suddenly PostgreSQL started to work again. I
will not dig any further to the strangeness.
I copied the content of the.conf from tuning wizard and restarted. Still
working!
I want to say t
15 matches
Mail list logo
