Re: Air-traffic benchmark

From: Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>
To: Lefteris <lsidir(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Air-traffic benchmark
Date: 2010-01-07 15:57:18
Message-ID: 9bbcef731001070757s61b12ac7yfbf64ca383862675@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

2010/1/7 Lefteris <lsidir(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org> wrote:
>> On 7.1.2010 15:23, Lefteris wrote:
>>
>>> I think what you all said was very helpful and clear! The only part
>>> that I still disagree/don't understand is the shared_buffer option:))
>>
>> Did you ever try increasing shared_buffers to what was suggested (around
>> 4 GB) and see what happens (I didn't see it in your posts)?
>
> No I did not to that yet, mainly because I need the admin of the
> machine to change the shmmax of the kernel and also because I have no
> multiple queries running. Does Seq scan uses shared_buffers?

Everything uses shared_buffers, even things that do not benefit from
it. This is because shared_buffers is the part of the general database
IO - it's unavoidable.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lefteris 2010-01-07 16:03:49 Re: Air-traffic benchmark
Previous Message Leo Mannhart 2010-01-07 15:47:10 Re: Massive table (500M rows) update nightmare