Thanks for the reply,
I tried some of suggested changes and some are modified based on this Link I stumbled on the web..
Though I'll be able to observe the outcome on the next few days when most of the users will rush on using the apps that depend on this db.
Regards, Oliver From: bricklen <bricklen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 12:59 PM To: Oliver Jagape Cc: pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Ideal configuration for postgresql 9.3 config Hi Oliver,
I have suggested a few changes below.On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Oliver Jagape
<oliver.jagape@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you need that many concurrent connections, invest in a connection pooler. If no connection pooler is used, knock off 800 connections if you can.
Test with a lower setting like 4GB, depending on your workload, that may or may not perform better.
This magnitudes too high. It is per query * sort and aggregation steps. If you expect queries with large result sets (or distinct, group by, etc), 100MB is probably a reasonable starting point.
Depending on your relation size, you might want to double this.
Is that a reason you chose such a high number?
Unless you have a clear reason to disable this (it applies to all queries), leave this enabled.
autovacuum should be on unless you know your data churn patterns and have scheduled manual vacuums.
You probably want that more aggressive, like 5s.
|