| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ma Sivakumar <masivakumar(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MySQL versus Postgres |
| Date: | 2010-08-13 00:30:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1281659456.14004.426.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 20:01 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > "Can we just say in the docs say 25% of memory to shared_buffers"
> > Yes, in fact we can. With the caveat of Windows, the reality is this
> > isn't going to hurt nearly as much as a untuned version of PostgreSQL
> > will.
> >
>
> With modern servers often shipping with 72GB of RAM now,
No they aren't. Those are servers you and I will deal with. Not 98% of
the users, using PostgreSQL.
Heck you could even say, "On systems with less than 16GB", for systems
larger contact your PostgreSQL support professional.
The point is, this is solvable for the majority base. There are always
corner cases and 72GB of ram is an extreme corner case.
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2010-08-13 00:38:35 | Re: MySQL versus Postgres |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-08-13 00:13:01 | Re: MySQL versus Postgres |