Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Crooke <dcrooke(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Carlo Stonebanks <stonec(dot)register(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:05:20
Message-ID: 26186.1263607520@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Dave Crooke <dcrooke(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This is the second time I've heard that "PG shared buffer on Windows doesn't
> matter" ... I'd like to understand the reasoning behind that claim, and why
> it differs from other DB servers.

AFAIK we don't really understand why, but the experimental evidence is
that increasing shared_buffers to really large values doesn't help much
on Windows. You can probably find more in the archives.

I'm not sure that this has been retested recently, so it might be
obsolete information, but it's what we've got.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-01-16 02:09:24 Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2)
Previous Message Dave Crooke 2010-01-16 01:49:25 Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2)