Re: High-end PG database configuration help
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: High-end PG database configuration help |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOR=d=2X=kvuaGU1NoA5qdsd+0nQvQoLjVx=buCthWce=ESLjA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: High-end PG database configuration help ("Gupta, Amar Nath" <angupta@corbus.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [MASSMAIL]Re: High-end PG database configuration help
Re: High-end PG database configuration help |
Список | pgsql-admin |
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Gupta, Amar Nath <angupta@corbus.com> wrote: > Many thanks for your reply Scott, > > Point#1: we have two DB servers (web app and reporting database). Web app does simple read and insert query + some complexqueries. And reporting DB is used for heave queries > Point#2: will do in next update ;) > Point#3: I'll check for that. > Point#4: Agreed, opening 2000 connection is not a good idea. Somehow my application is setup in this way I cannot use pgpool,but working on it in long term. > Point#5: I have setup 32GB for that. > > Server current configuration is: > max_connections = 2000 > shared_buffers = 32GB > work_mem = 128MB > synchronous_commit = off > effective_cache_size = 192GB > > rest settings are on default Which of your two dbs has 2,000 connections and needs tuning, the reporting db or the web db? Two points: 1: Rarely if ever is 32GB needed for shared_buffers. There's a cost to have more shared_buffers and it's pretty rare that anything over 1 or 2GB is needed. If you have a performance test showing you need more than a few G then yes, go for it. 2: You've got to get max_connections down to something reasonable. Look at pgbouncer. It's super easy to setup and will allow you to drop the # connections to 100 or so even for busy dbs with lots of users etc.
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: