Anne, please read the comment at the bottom of this post!
On 07/05/13 09:46, Anne Rosset wrote:
Hi Thomas,
It is not a dedicated box (we have Jboss running too).
cpu_tuple_cost | 0.01
seq_page_cost | 1
random_page_cost | 4
effective_cache_size | 512MB
We have the data directory on nfs (rw,intr,hard,tcp,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,nfsvers=3,tcp). Note that we have also tested putting the data directory on local disk and didn't find a big improvement.
Thanks,
Anne
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Kellerer
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:12 AM
To: pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Deterioration in performance when query executed in multi threads
Anne Rosset, 06.05.2013 19:00:
Postgres version: 9.0.13
Work_mem is set to 64MB
Shared_buffer to 240MB
Segment_size is 1GB
Wal_buffer is 10MB
Artifact table: 251831 rows
Field_value table: 77378 rows
Mntr_subscription: 929071 rows
Relationship: 270478 row
Folder: 280356 rows
Item: 716465 rows
Sfuser: 5733 rows
Project: 1817 rows
8CPUs
RAM: 8GB
With 8GB RAM you should be able to increase shared_buffer to 1GB or maybe even higher especially if this is a dedicated server.
240MB is pretty conservative for a server with that amount of RAM (unless you have many other applications running on that box)
Also what are the values for
cpu_tuple_cost
seq_page_cost
random_page_cost
effective_cache_size
What kind of harddisk is in the server? SSD? Regular ones (spinning disks)?
The policy on this list is to add comments at the bottom, so people can
first read what you are replying to.
Though you can intersperse comments where that is apprporiate.
Cheers,
Gavin
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
