From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: shared_buffer optimization |
Date: | 2006-08-09 21:28:04 |
Message-ID: | 20060809212804.GU40481@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:20:01AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> I'm not aware of any actual evidence having emerged that it is of any
> value to set shared buffers higher than 10000.
They saw a large increase in how many concurrent connections they could
handle when they bumped shared_buffers up from ~10% to 50% of memory.
Back then they had 4G of memory. They're up to 12G right now, but
haven't bumped shared_buffers up.
Every single piece of advice I've seen on shared_buffers comes from the
7.x era, when our buffer management was extremely simplistic. IMO all of
that knowledge was made obsolete when 8.0 came out, and our handling of
shared_buffers has improved ever further since then. This is definately
an area that could use a lot more testing.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-08-09 21:35:43 | Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000 |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-08-09 21:20:46 | Re: vacuuming |