Re: Offering tuned config files
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
From: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Cc: "PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-02-14T11:58:57Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:12:50 +0800, "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> wrote: >Here's a stab at some extra conf files. Feel free to shoot them down. No intent to shoot anything down, just random thoughts: effective_cache_size = 20000 (~ 160 MB) should be more adequate for a 256 MB machine than the extremely conservative default of 1000. I admit that the effect of this change is hard to benchmark. A way too low (or too high) setting may lead the planner to wrong conclusions. More parameters affecting the planner: #cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01 #cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.001 #cpu_operator_cost = 0.0025 Are these still good defaults? I have no hard facts, but ISTM that CPU speed is increasing more rapidly than disk access speed. In postgresql.conf.sample-writeheavy you have: commit_delay = 10000 Is this still needed with "ganged WAL writes"? Tom? Servus Manfred