Dennis,
> http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
>
> > NOTICE: shared_buffers is 256
For everyone's info, the current (8.0) version is at:
http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(en
Karim Nassar wrote:
Your goal is admirable. However, many people tweak their postgresql.conf
files, and your program can't know whether or not this has happened. It
might be a good idea to have a var $do_db_optimization, which defaults
to on. Then, if your users have trouble or are advanced admin
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 17:30 -0400, Madison Kelly wrote:
>As I mentioned to Bruno in my reply to him, I am trying to keep as
> many tweaks as I can inside my program. The reason for this is that this
> is a backup program that I am trying to aim to more mainstream users or
> where a techy wou
Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Todd Landfried wrote:
>> NOTICE: shared_buffers is 256
> This looks like it's way too low. Try something like 2048.
It also is evidently PG 7.2 or before; SHOW's output hasn't looked like
that in years. Try a more recent releas
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:06:27 -0700,
Todd Landfried <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What's the problem? The sucker gets s-l-o-w on relatively simple
> queries. For example, simply listing all of the users online at one
> time takes 30-45 seconds if we're talking about 800 users. We've
>
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Todd Landfried wrote:
> So, what I need is to be pointed to (or told) what are the best
> settings for our database given these memory configurations. What
> should we do?
Maybe this will help:
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
> NOTICE: sha
I deeply apologize if this has been covered with some similar topic
before, but I need a little guidance in the optimization department.
We use Postgres as our database and we're having some issues dealing
with customers who are, shall we say, "thrifty" when it comes to
buying RAM.
We tel
