Re: PostgreSQL scalability on Sun UltraSparc T1
От | Jignesh Shah |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL scalability on Sun UltraSparc T1 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 44CDAC1B.4050109@sun.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL scalability on Sun UltraSparc T1 (Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL scalability on Sun UltraSparc T1
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Hi Arjen, I am curious about your Sun Studio compiler options also. Can you send that too ? Any other tweakings that you did on Solaris? Thanks. Regards, Jignesh Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > On 29-7-2006 19:01, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Well I would be curious about the postgresql.conf and how much ram >> etc... it had. > > It was the 8core version with 16GB memory... but actually that's just > overkill, the active portions of the database easily fits in 8GB and a > test on another machine with just 2GB didn't even show that much > improvements when going to 7GB (6x1G, 2x 512M), it was mostly in the > range of 10% improvement or less. > > Anyway, the differences to the default postgresql.conf: > shared_buffers = 30000 > Tests with 40k, 50k en 60k didn't really show improvements. > > work_mem = 2048 > This probably could've been set higher with the sheer amount of > not-really-used memory. > > maintenance_work_mem = 65535 > Not really important of course > > max_fsm_pages = 50000 > Somehow it needed to be set quite high, probably because we only > cleaned up after doing over 200k requests. > > effective_cache_size = 350000 > As said, the database fitted in 8GB of memory, so I didn't see a need > to set this higher than for the 8GB machines (x4200 and another T2000 > we had). > > default_statistics_target = 200 > For a few columns on the largest tables I manually raised it to 1000 > > log_min_duration_statement = 1000 > I'm not sure if this has much overhead? Stats logging was turned/left > on as well. > Turning that off improved it a few percent. > >> I understand, I just have a feeling that we could do even better :) I >> do appreciate all your efforts. > > Well, I'll keep that in mind :) > What it makes even worse for MySQL is that it had (on another machine) > about 8M hits on the query cache for 4M inserts, i.e. half of the > queries weren't even executed on it. > > Best regards, > > Arjen > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: