Re: Performance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Apr 12, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:

> Dne 12.4.2011 19:23, Ogden napsal(a):
>> 
>> On Apr 12, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
>> 
>>> Ogden <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have been wrestling with the configuration of the dedicated Postges 9.0.3
>>>> server at work and granted, there's more activity on the production server, but
>>>> the same queries take twice as long on the beefier server than my mac at home.
>>>> I have pasted what I have changed in postgresql.conf - I am wondering if
>>>> there's any way one can help me change things around to be more efficient.
>>>> 
>>>> Dedicated PostgreSQL 9.0.3 Server with 16GB Ram
>>>> 
>>>> Heavy write and read (for reporting and calculations) server. 
>>>> 
>>>> max_connections = 350 
>>>> shared_buffers = 4096MB  
>>>> work_mem = 32MB
>>>> maintenance_work_mem = 512MB
>>> 
>>> That's okay.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> seq_page_cost = 0.02                    # measured on an arbitrary scale
>>>> random_page_cost = 0.03 
>>> 
>>> Do you have super, Super, SUPER fast disks? I think, this (seq_page_cost
>>> and random_page_cost) are completly wrong.
>>> 
>> 
>> No, I don't have super fast disks. Just the 15K SCSI over RAID. I
>> find by raising them to:
>> 
>> seq_page_cost = 1.0
>> random_page_cost = 3.0
>> cpu_tuple_cost = 0.3
>> #cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.005           # same scale as above - 0.005
>> #cpu_operator_cost = 0.0025             # same scale as above
>> effective_cache_size = 8192MB 
>> 
>> That this is better, some queries run much faster. Is this better?
> 
> I guess it is. What really matters with those cost variables is the
> relative scale - the original values
> 
> seq_page_cost = 0.02
> random_page_cost = 0.03
> cpu_tuple_cost = 0.02
> 
> suggest that the random reads are almost as expensive as sequential
> reads (which usually is not true - the random reads are significantly
> more expensive), and that processing each row is about as expensive as
> reading the page from disk (again, reading data from disk is much more
> expensive than processing them).
> 
> So yes, the current values are much more likely to give good results.
> 
> You've mentioned those values were recommended on this list - can you
> point out the actual discussion?
> 
> 

Thank you for your reply. 

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-09/msg00169.php is how I first played with those values...

Ogden
-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance



[Postgresql General]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP Users]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Yosemite]

  Powered by Linux