No, not really - I can do some more testing with pgbench to see what
happens though...I'll do it on monday
Chris
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In postgresql.conf.sample-writeheavy you have:
> > commit_delay = 1
> > Is this still nee
On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 07:41, Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:24:23 +0200, Daniel Kalchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >The default [cache] on BSD systems is 10% of the total RAM, so on a 256MB machine
>this
> >would be ~26MB or effective_cache_size = 32000.
>
> I was a bit too L
Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In postgresql.conf.sample-writeheavy you have:
> commit_delay = 1
> Is this still needed with "ganged WAL writes"? Tom?
I doubt that the current options for grouped commits are worth anything
at the moment. Chris, do you have any evidence ba
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:24:23 +0200, Daniel Kalchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The default [cache] on BSD systems is 10% of the total RAM, so on a 256MB machine
>this
>would be ~26MB or effective_cache_size = 32000.
I was a bit too Linux-minded, where every peace of memory not needed
for anythin
>>>Manfred Koizar said:
> effective_cache_size = 2 (~ 160 MB) should be more adequate for a
> 256 MB machine than the extremely conservative default of 1000. I
> admit that the effect of this change is hard to benchmark. A way too
> low (or too high) setting may lead the planner to wrong
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:12:50 +0800, "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here's a stab at some extra conf files. Feel free to shoot them down.
No intent to shoot anything down, just random thoughts:
effective_cache_size = 2 (~ 160 MB) should be more adequate for a
256 MB mac
OK,
Here's a stab at some extra conf files. Feel free to shoot them down.
If we can come up with at least _some_ alternative files that we can put
somewhere for them to see when postgres is installed, then at least people
can see what variables will affect what...
I didn't see the point of a 'w
