From: | "Harald Armin Massa" <haraldarminmassa(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Kernel cache vs shared_buffers |
Date: | 2007-05-13 09:57:16 |
Message-ID: | 7be3f35d0705130257o1ce62db6t7512e964a99c23f2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Heikki,
> > PostgreSQL on Windows. My current rule of thumb on Windows: set
> > shared_buffers to minimum * 2
> > Adjust effective_cache_size to the number given as "system cache"
> > within the task manager.
>
> Why?
I tried with shared_buffers = 50% of available memory, and with 30% of
available memory, and the thoughput on complex queries stalled or got
worse.
I lowered shared_buffers to minimum, and started raising
effective_cache_size, and performance on real world queries improved.
pg_bench did not fully agree when simulating large numbers concurrent
queries.
So I tried setting shared_buffers between minimum and 2.5*minimum, and
pg_bench speeds recovered and real world queries did similiar.
My understanding is that shared_buffers are realised as memory mapped
file in win32; and that they are only usually kept in memory. Maybe I
understood that wrong.
Harald
--
GHUM Harald Massa
persuadere et programmare
Harald Armin Massa
Reinsburgstraße 202b
70197 Stuttgart
0173/9409607
fx 01212-5-13695179
-
Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-05-13 10:39:04 | Re: Kernel cache vs shared_buffers |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-05-13 09:41:34 | Re: Kernel cache vs shared_buffers |