By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,852 Members | 2,198 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,852 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Current wisdom wrt fsm on 8.0

P: n/a
What is the current wisdom on setting the fsm variables
for 8.0? How is it different from 7.4? Or is it?

I am assuming these are the values that changed with
Jan's changes. If not what were those variables?

(I can't seem to track down the threads on these things.)

--elein
================================================== ==========
el***@varlena.com Varlena, LLC www.varlena.com

PostgreSQL Consulting, Support & Training

PostgreSQL General Bits http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/
================================================== ===========
I have always depended on the [QA] of strangers.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
2 Replies


P: n/a
elein <el***@varlena.com> writes:
What is the current wisdom on setting the fsm variables
for 8.0? How is it different from 7.4? Or is it?
Same as before.
I am assuming these are the values that changed with
Jan's changes. If not what were those variables?


No, I can't think of any 8.0 changes that would influence how you set
FSM size. There's been some speculation that with the new ARC code,
it might be worth increasing shared_buffers to larger values than were
useful before. I haven't seen any experiments to back that up though.

There are also some brand-new GUC variables that you can twiddle to
influence the background writer's behavior; and the existence of the
bgwriter might affect your thinking about how often checkpoints need
to occur.

pgsql-performance would probably be the most appropriate venue if you
want to discuss this more.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
tg*@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) writes:
elein <el***@varlena.com> writes:
What is the current wisdom on setting the fsm variables
for 8.0? How is it different from 7.4? Or is it?


Same as before.
I am assuming these are the values that changed with Jan's changes.
If not what were those variables?


No, I can't think of any 8.0 changes that would influence how you
set FSM size. There's been some speculation that with the new ARC
code, it might be worth increasing shared_buffers to larger values
than were useful before. I haven't seen any experiments to back
that up though.


It's also likely that you should expect to get better effectiveness
even out of smaller amounts of shared buffers, because they won't get
"trashed" by vacuums the way they used to be. Well, overall, the
removal of ways of "trashing" cache should make it more effective at
all sorts of sizes. But I digress...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxxian.html
A VAX is virtually a computer, but not quite.
Nov 23 '05 #3

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.