Re: Low Performance for big hospital server ..
От | amrit@health2.moph.go.th |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Low Performance for big hospital server .. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1104740336.41d8fff03ff3a@webmail.moph.go.th обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Low Performance for big hospital server .. (Mark Kirkwood <markir@coretech.co.nz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Low Performance for big hospital server ..
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
> shared_buffers = 12000 will use 12000*8192 bytes (i.e about 96Mb). It is > shared, so no matter how many connections you have it will only use 96M. Now I use the figure of 27853 > > > >Will the increasing in effective cache size to arround 200000 make a little > bit > >improvement ? Do you think so? > > Decrease the sort mem too much [8196] make the performance much slower so I use sort_mem = 16384 and leave effective cache to the same value , the result is quite better but I should wait for tomorrow morning [official hour] to see the end result. > > > I would leave it at the figure you proposed (128897), and monitor your > performance. > (you can always increase it later and see what the effect is). Yes , I use this figure. If the result still poor , putting more ram "6-8Gb" [also putting more money too] will solve the problem ? Thanks , Amrit Thailand
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: