Re: Total ram size study

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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