From: | Rodrigo Barboza <rodrigombufrj(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: effective_cache_size on 32-bits postgres |
Date: | 2013-03-18 18:54:12 |
Message-ID: | CANs8QJbhkm=M=44YnYR5xQ4znEkB2Xi9q7KfRWi=V7GnB9_dsQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Yes, Claudio. You got it.
But Rob seems to have already answered the confusion between 32 and 64 bits
for effective_cache_size.
Actually I am creating generic configuration based on physical memory.
So I wanna be conservative about effective_cache_size. That's why I'm
following postgres tuning website instructions. If it says it is
conservative, that's good for me.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Rodrigo Barboza <rodrigombufrj(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >> So setting this as half of ram, as suggested in postgres tuning
> >> webpage should be safe?
> >
> > Half of RAM is likely to be a very bad setting for any work load.
> > It will tend to result in the highest possible number of pages
> > duplicated in PostgreSQL and OS caches, reducing the cache hit
> > ratio. More commonly given advice is to start at 25% of RAM,
> > limited to 2GB on Windows or 32-bit systems or 8GB otherwise. Try
> > incremental adjustments from that point using your actual workload
> > on you actual hardware to find the "sweet spot". Some DW
> > environments report better performance assigning over 50% of RAM to
> > shared_buffers; OLTP loads often need to reduce this to prevent
> > periodic episodes of high latency.
>
>
> He's asking about effective_cache_size. You seem to be talking about
> shared_buffers.
>
> Real question behind this all, is whether the e_c_s GUC is 32-bit on
> 32-bit systems. Because if so, it ought to be limited too. If not...
> not.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-03-21 00:12:56 | Index usage for tstzrange? |
Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-03-18 18:51:17 | Re: effective_cache_size on 32-bits postgres |