Re: possible improvement between G4 and G5

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Qing Zhao <qzhao(at)quotefx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: possible improvement between G4 and G5
Date: 2004-04-06 05:47:22
Message-ID: 19781.1081230442@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Qing Zhao <qzhao(at)quotefx(dot)net> writes:
> We have got a G5 64-bit processor to replace an old G4 32-bit
> processor. Given everything else equal, should we see a big
> improvement on PG's performance?

Nope. Database performance typically depends on disk performance first,
and RAM size second. A 64-bit processor might help by allowing you to
install more RAM, but you didn't say that you had.

> The other question I have is that, when I tried different size for
> shared_buffer ( i used 10,000, 1,000, 528, 256) and Max
> connections=32, it gives me error when I tried to start PG using
> pg_ctl start as postgres. It kept saying this is bigger than the
> system Shared Memory.

Out-of-the-box, Mac OS X has a very low SHMMAX limit. See the PG admin
docs or the mail list archives about how to increase it. You should do
this --- most people find that you want to set shared_buffers to 1000 or
10000 or so for best performance.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar 2004-04-06 07:27:13 Re: performance comparission postgresql/ms-sql server
Previous Message Andrew Matthews 2004-04-06 01:41:08 Wierd issues