On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:11 AM, S Arvind wrote:
>> > Thanks Robert,
>> > So for our scenario what is the most important factor to be
>> > noted
>> > for performance.
>>
>> Tou
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:11 AM, S Arvind wrote:
> > Thanks Robert,
> > So for our scenario what is the most important factor to be
> noted
> > for performance.
>
> Tough to say without benchmarking, but if you have a lot of small
> da
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:11 AM, S Arvind wrote:
> Thanks Robert,
> So for our scenario what is the most important factor to be noted
> for performance.
Tough to say without benchmarking, but if you have a lot of small
databases that easily fit in RAM, and a lot of concurrent connections,
Thanks Robert,
So for our scenario what is the most important factor to be noted
for performance.
-Arvind S
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:11 AM, S Arvind wrote:
> > In some docs i read that shared buffer must be increased based on the
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:11 AM, S Arvind wrote:
> In some docs i read that shared buffer must be increased based on the
> maximum dataset size. For my scenario the dataset size is relative small
> less then a Gb, but database# handled by a server is nearly 200db per
> server and average connectio
In some docs i read that shared buffer must be increased based on the
maximum dataset size. For my scenario the dataset size is relative small
less then a Gb, but database# handled by a server is nearly 200db per
server and average connection# to server will be >500 (approx 5/per each
DB). So for
