RE: Tuning for PostGreSQL Database

From: Michael E. Conlen (meconlen_at_obfuscated.net)
Date: 07/25/03

  • Next message: Tom Samplonius: "RE: Tuning for PostGreSQL Database" 
    To: "Christopher Weimann" <cweimann@k12hq.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:25:57 -0400

    Usually a database server will have better algorithms to cache information
    than the OS, as the OS handles the general case, and the server can handle
    the specific case. In this case, I'd look to the Postgress people to see if
    they know which is better, but there's also this tidbit found on the page
    under the first link

    "There is one way to decide what is best for you. Set a high value of this
    parameter and run the database for typical usage. Watch usage of shared
    memory using ipcs or similar tools. A recommended figure would be between
    1.2 to 2 times peak shared memory usage. "

    Give it a run and see. 

    --
Michael Conlen
-----Original Message-----
I was concerned about the disk cache because of this link
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html#shbuf
which says...
   PostgreSQL counts a lot on the OS to cache data files and
   hence does not bother with duplicating its file caching effort.
   The shared buffers parameter assumes that OS is going to cache
   a lot of files and hence it is generally very low compared
   with system RAM.  Even for a dataset in excess of 20GB, a
   setting of 128MB may be too much, if you have only 1GB RAM
   and an aggressive-at-caching OS like Linux.
But now that I have looked a bit more I see that this link
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/aw_pgsql_book/hw_performance/node6.html
which says...
   Ideally, the POSTGRESQL shared buffer cache will be:
       * Large enough to hold most commonly-accessed tables
       * Small enough to avoid swap pagein activity
So I have conflicting documentation.
I have machine with 4Gig of ram.  What is the maximum
value of SHMMAX on FreeBSD?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Tom Samplonius: "RE: Tuning for PostGreSQL Database"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Optimization problem
      ... CPU core and is able to respond to the CPU at full speed (i.e. read or ... each of the four CPU cores has 32 KBytes of L1 cache for data (and ... When you go out of L2 cache as well, the CPU must rely on the plain RAM. ... harddisk) is really called _paging_. ...
      (comp.lang.java.programmer)
    • Re: Slow File Load Through ODBC Driver
      ... buffer cache from 772 Megs to 132Megs ... virtual) ram immediately to fox when fox generated a large select statement. ... XP professional (suspecting kernel memory handling) -- no effect; ...
      (microsoft.public.fox.programmer.exchange)
    • Re: speeding up my runtime on a c6713.
      ... it for cache, and possibly enabled the cache controller? ... I ran out of IRAM memory so I moved all my variables to ERAM. ... "Are you using all 256k of DSP ram, or have you reserved up to 64k of ...
      (comp.dsp)
    • Re: [OT] Interview with Con Kolivas on Linux failures
      ... On one side there are people who point out that programs often allocate memory that goes unused most of the time, and this memory can be better used as disk cache. ... The ultimate result of this was the addition of a "swappiness" knob to 2.6 kernels to allow people to tune this to their taste. ... I haven't felt the need to tweak swappiness on my desktop machine from the default of 60, but it's also got 1 gigabyte of RAM. ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: Tips sought for optimizing 10.4.10s performance
      ... If you're doing graphics or video editing, even more RAM. ... upgrade to disks with those speeds. ... 7200 RPM disks have only had 2MB of cache. ...
      (comp.sys.mac.system)
    • Quantcast