From: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Total ram size study |
Date: | 2017-04-22 16:30:23 |
Message-ID: | CANu8Fix97_6XG+tJtme=wC0hxrV2V4VGAf8zx85yXGw4XFEsTA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks Vick,
Those were my thoughts as well. Your response gives me something to help
convince the client to kick up the hardware.
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> wrote:
> I've not done a formal study, but I've always found that throwing hardware
> at the problem does wonders. My current database I made faster by bumping
> RAM until the entire working set fits in memory. The server has 256GB of
> RAM, half of which is used by ZFS for its purposes, and the other half for
> Postgres. The prior iteration of the servers only had 64GB of RAM and the
> difference was very remarkable.
>
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Has anyone ever done a study on performance increase via ram increase?I
>> have a client on AWS with 8GB total ram (2GB shared_buffers), and I
>> amcurious if doubling the ram to 16GB (4GB shared_buffers) will result in
>> minimizing query response time.*
>>
>> --
>> *Melvin Davidson*
>> I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
>> wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
>>
>
>
--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2017-04-22 16:34:07 | Re: pg_basebackup issue |
Previous Message | Vick Khera | 2017-04-22 16:20:12 | Re: Total ram size study |