2012/3/1 Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Stefan Keller <sfkeller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2012/2/28 Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> In the OP, you say "There is enough main memory to hold all table >>> contents.". I'm assuming, there you refer to your current system, with >>> 4GB memory. >> >> Sorry for the confusion: I'm doing these tests on this machine with >> one table (osm_point) and one country. This table has a size of 2.6GB >> and 10 million tuples. The other machine has to deal with at least 5 >> tables in total and will be hold more than one country plus routing >> etc.. > > What is your shared_buffers set to? 2.6GB is uncomfortably close to > 4GB, considering the computer has other things it needs to use memory > for as well. These are the current modified settings in postgresql.conf: shared_buffers = 128MB work_mem = 3MB maintenance_work_mem = 30MB effective_cache_size = 352MB wal_buffers = 8MB default_statistics_target = 50 constraint_exclusion = on checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9 checkpoint_segments = 16 max_connections = 80 -Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
