From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Claire Chang <yenhsiac(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres 8.4 memory related parameters |
Date: | 2011-08-09 03:59:08 |
Message-ID: | 4E40B08C.6010309@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Claire Chang <yenhsiac(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> shared_buffers = 32GB
>>
>
> I seem to remember seeing some benchmarks showing that performance
> falls off after 10GB or 20GB on that setting.
>
Not even quite that high. I've never heard of a setting over 10GB being
anything other than worse than a smaller setting, and that was on
Solaris. At this point I never consider a value over 8GB, and even that
needs to be carefully matched against how heavy the writes on the server
are. You just can't set shared_buffers to a huge value in PostgreSQL
yet, and "huge" means ">8GB" right now.
Note that the problems you can run into with too much buffer cache are
much worse with a low setting for checkpoint_segments...and this
configuration doesn't change it at all from the tiny default. That
should go to at least 64 on a server this size.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2011-08-09 04:13:05 | Re: Suspected Postgres Datacorruption |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-08-09 03:52:39 | Re: Postgres performance on Linux and Windows |