On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Scott Carey wrote:
> You may have decreased performance in your batch jobs with the lower
> work_mem setting.
That would be why I recommended benchmarking queries that need more
memory and setting work_mem for those queries alone.
> Additionally, the fact that yo
You may have decreased performance in your batch jobs with the lower work_mem
setting.
Additionally, the fact that you haven't had swap storm issues so far means that
although there is certain risk of an issue, its probably a lot lower than what
has been talked about here so far.
Without a chang
- "Scott Marlowe" escreveu:
> Oh my lord, that is a foot gun waiting to go off. Assuming 2k
> connections, and somehow a fair number of them went active with big
> sorts, you'd be able to exhaust all physical memory with about 8 to
> 16 connections. Lower work_mem now. To something like 1
Hi,
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 02:37:42 Scott Marlowe wrote:
> If some oddball query really needs a lot of work_mem,
> and benchmarks show something larger work_mem helps, consider raising
> the work_mem setting for that one query to something under 1G (way
> under 1G) That makes it noticeably fas
Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:37:42 -0700 -n
Scott Marlowe írta:
> Oh my lord, that is a foot gun waiting to go off. Assuming 2k
> connections, and somehow a fair number of them went active with big
I absolutely agree with Scott. Plus set effective_cache_size
accordingly, this would help the planner. You
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Flavio Henrique Araque Gurgel
wrote:
> Hello all
>
> In a dedicated server with 16 cores and 16GB of RAM running PostgreSQL 8.2.5
> we have a database with basically two kinds of transactions:
> - short transactions with a couple of updates and inserts that runs all
Hello all
In a dedicated server with 16 cores and 16GB of RAM running PostgreSQL 8.2.5 we
have a database with basically two kinds of transactions:
- short transactions with a couple of updates and inserts that runs all the
day;
- batch data loads with hundreds of inserts that runs several t
On Nov 18, 2007 8:29 AM, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 13:12 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > Note that my best time was at around 16 Meg work_mem. This data set
> > is MUCH bigger than 16 Meg, it's around 300-400 Meg. But work_mem
> > optimized out at 16 Meg. B
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 13:12 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Note that my best time was at around 16 Meg work_mem. This data set
> is MUCH bigger than 16 Meg, it's around 300-400 Meg. But work_mem
> optimized out at 16 Meg. Btw, I tried it going as high as 768 Meg,
> and it was still slower than 1
Bill Moran a écrit :
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:08:57 -0600
"Campbell, Lance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do you know when you should up the value of work_mem? Just play
with the number. Is there a query I could do that would tell me if
PostgreSql is performing SQL that could use more memory
On Nov 9, 2007 2:38 PM, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I imagine in a few years, hardly anyone using postgresql will remember
> > the ancient art of having either apostrophes in a row inside your
> > plpgsql functions...
>
> Speaking of that devil, I started working with Postgres m
On Nov 9, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007 1:19 PM, Campbell, Lance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is amazing, how after working with databases very actively for
over 8
years, I am still learning things.
The fun thing about postgresql is that just when you've got it figu
On Nov 9, 2007 1:19 PM, Campbell, Lance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is amazing, how after working with databases very actively for over 8
> years, I am still learning things.
The fun thing about postgresql is that just when you've got it figured
out, somebody will come along and improve it in
: Scott Marlowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Campbell, Lance
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] work_mem and shared_buffers
On Nov 9, 2007 12:08 PM, Campbell, Lance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you
On Nov 9, 2007 12:08 PM, Campbell, Lance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you know when you should up the value of work_mem? Just play
> with the number. Is there a query I could do that would tell me if
> PostgreSql is performing SQL that could use more memory for sorting?
Trial and error.
, 2007 2:08 PM
To: Campbell, Lance
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] work_mem and shared_buffers
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:08:57 -0600
"Campbell, Lance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you know when you should up the value of work_mem? Just play
>
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:08:57 -0600
"Campbell, Lance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you know when you should up the value of work_mem? Just play
> with the number. Is there a query I could do that would tell me if
> PostgreSql is performing SQL that could use more memory for sorting?
8.2 an
University of Illinois
217.333.0382
http://webservices.uiuc.edu
-Original Message-
From: Heikki Linnakangas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heikki
Linnakangas
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 11:57 AM
To: Campbell, Lance
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM
Campbell, Lance wrote:
Does the amount of memory allocate to work_mem get subtracted from
shared_buffers?
Example:
If work_mem is 1M and there are 10 connections and shared_buffers is
100M then would the total be 90 M left for shared_buffers?
Or does the amount of memory allocated for work_mem
Does the amount of memory allocate to work_mem get subtracted from
shared_buffers?
Example:
If work_mem is 1M and there are 10 connections and shared_buffers is
100M then would the total be 90 M left for shared_buffers?
Or does the amount of memory allocated for work_mem have nothing to
"Campbell, Lance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have been researching how to improve my overall performance of
> postgres. I am a little confused on the reasoning for how work_mem is
> used in the postgresql.conf file. The way I understand the
> documentation is you define with work_mem how mu
21 matches
Mail list logo
