Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.
От | Jennifer Trey |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 863606ec0904080924oa0f8196ha0d51d4f131f6a17@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning. (Scott Mead <scott.lists@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.
Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning. |
Список | pgsql-general |
Scott, thank you.
I think I might have misunderstood the effective cache size. Its measured in 8kB blocks. So the old number 449697 equals 3.5 GB, which is quite much. Should I lower this? I had plans to use 2.75GB max. Can I put 2.75GB there? Should I leave it?
Also, Greg. Since I use Java, prepared statements are quite natural. And I read this part on the guide which I understand you are part of :
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-resource.html#GUC-MAX-PREPARED-TRANSACTIONS
Should I change this value? Not sure... :S
Worried about the locks... whats your though on this? Should I just leave it alone?
Sincerely / Jennifer
I think I might have misunderstood the effective cache size. Its measured in 8kB blocks. So the old number 449697 equals 3.5 GB, which is quite much. Should I lower this? I had plans to use 2.75GB max. Can I put 2.75GB there? Should I leave it?
Also, Greg. Since I use Java, prepared statements are quite natural. And I read this part on the guide which I understand you are part of :
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-resource.html#GUC-MAX-PREPARED-TRANSACTIONS
Should I change this value? Not sure... :S
Worried about the locks... whats your though on this? Should I just leave it alone?
Sincerely / Jennifer
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: