From: | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <mail(at)webthatworks(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: MySQL versus Postgres |
Date: | 2010-08-13 07:07:15 |
Message-ID: | 20100813090715.7f9afaf6@dawn.webthatworks.it |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:17:17 +0800
Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> On 13/08/10 08:38, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> It's slower than smaller numbers, and if you actually dirty a
> >> significant portion of it you can have a checkpoint that takes
> >> hours to sync, completely trashing system responsiveness for a
> >> good portion of it.
> >
> > So how much is the reasonal upper limit of shared_buffers at this
> > point? If it's obvious, should we disable or warn to use more
> > than that number?
>
> Trouble is, there won't be a "reasonable upper limit" ... because
> it depends so much on the ratio of memory to I/O throughput, the
> system's writeback aggressiveness, etc etc etc.
>
> Personally I've had two Pg machines where one seems to suffer with
> shared_buffers > 250MB out of 4GB and the other, which has 8GB of
> RAM, wants shared_buffers to be around 4GB! The main difference:
> disk subsystems.
What about the ratio of R/W? If it is a mostly read system is the
memory/IO throughput still a limiting factor for increasing
shared_buffers?
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2010-08-13 07:40:29 | Re: Setting up pgpass.conf for the postgres OS user on windows for pgAgent |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-08-13 06:52:30 | ORM integration? |