| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Andres Freund' <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Supporting huge pages on Windows |
| Date: | 2016-10-11 02:36:06 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F5F9E54@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Thomas Munro [mailto:thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com]
> Your ~2.4% number is similar to what was reported for Linux with 4GB
> shared_buffers:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130913234125.GC13697%40roobarb
> .crazydogs.org
I'm relieved to know that a similar figure was gained on Linux. Thanks for the info.
> Later in that thread there was a report of a dramatic ~15% increase in "best
> result" TPS, but that was with 60GB of shared_buffers on a machine with
> 256GB of RAM:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131024060313.GA21888%40toroid.
> org
From: Andres Freund [mailto:andres(at)anarazel(dot)de]
> FWIW, I've seen 2-3x increases with ~60GB of s_b.
Wow, nice figures. It's unfortunate that I don't have such a big machine available at hand.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2016-10-11 03:30:49 | Re: "Re: Question about grant create on database and pg_dump/pg_dumpall |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-10-11 02:29:31 | Re: Macro customizable hashtable / bitmapscan & aggregation perf |