| From: | Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com>, Fabrício dos Anjos Silva <fabricio(dot)silva(at)linkcom(dot)com(dot)br>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How does PG know if data is in memory? |
| Date: | 2010-10-28 15:31:29 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi==zbZo0R9Kw16Ke24jQ5ggcM==NqRWKQZoRLvH@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2010/10/28 Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>:
> Greg Smith writes:
>
>> heard privately from two people who have done similar experiments on Linux
>> and found closer to 8GB to be the point where performance started
>
> So on a machine with 72GB is 8GB still the recommended value?
Yes, as a maximum, not a minimum. (Some applications will work better
with less shared_buffers than others)
> Usually have only 10 to 20 connections.
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
--
Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Cédric Villemain | 2010-10-28 15:37:28 | Re: Massive update, memory usage |
| Previous Message | Jesper Krogh | 2010-10-28 15:28:53 | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |