Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard

Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Greg Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Memory detection works on recent (>=2.5) version of Python for Windows
>>> now.
>> I just realized that the provided configuration is really not optimal for
>> Windows users because of the known limitations that prevent larger
>> shared_buffers settings from being effective on that platform. I know there
>> are some notes on that subject in the archives that I'll look though, but
>> I'd appreciate a suggestion for what a good upper-limit for that setting is
>> on Windows. I also wonder whether any of the other parameters have similar
>> restrictions on their useful range.
>
> It's going to be of little use to 99% of Windows users anyway as it's
> written in Python. What was wrong with C?

It could be shipped with a bundled python, I guess.

Python is a lot more common in these scenarios than any of the other
"unixy languages" - much more common than perl for example - on Windows
in my experience. It could be because it's easier to bundle or something?

> FWIW though, in some pgbench tests on XP Pro, on a 4GB machine, 512MB
> seemed to be consistently the most effective size (out of tests on
> 32MB, 512MB and 1GB). There wasn't much between 32 and 512 though - my
> suspicion is that 128 or 256 would be similarly effective. I didn't
> have time to test that though.

That's about what I've heard around as well - I don't think I've ever
heard of a case where >512 has actually helped.

//Magnus