Re: MySQL versus Postgres

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
Cc: Ma Sivakumar <masivakumar(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MySQL versus Postgres
Date: 2010-08-13 00:01:39
Message-ID: 4C648B63.8030700@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> "Can we just say in the docs say 25% of memory to shared_buffers"
> Yes, in fact we can. With the caveat of Windows, the reality is this
> isn't going to hurt nearly as much as a untuned version of PostgreSQL
> will.
>

With modern servers often shipping with 72GB of RAM now, that would make
shared_buffers set to 18GB. This is an absolutely disastrous setting
for PostgreSQL in its current state; I'm seeing servers with that much
RAM that suffer enormous problems with a far lower shared_buffers than
that in production. I'm working on a doc patch to address this better
before 9.0 goes out but I assure you this simple rule of thumb is
already nearing its end of life as a good one for big systems.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2010-08-13 00:06:19 Re: MySQL versus Postgres
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-08-12 22:48:19 Re: Very bad plan when using VIEW and IN (SELECT...*)