From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, "PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
Date: | 2003-02-12 05:32:41 |
Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOCEICCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
> >> We could retarget to try to stay under SHMMAX=4M, which I think is
> >> the next boundary that's significant in terms of real-world platforms
> >> (isn't that the default SHMMAX on some BSDen?). That would allow us
> >> 350 or so shared_buffers, which is better, but still not really a
> >> serious choice for production work.
>
> > What is a serious choice for production work?
>
> Well, as I commented later in that mail, I feel that 1000 buffers is
> a reasonable choice --- but I have to admit that I have no hard data
> to back up that feeling. Perhaps we should take this to the
> pgsql-perform list and argue about reasonable choices.
Damn. Another list I have to subscribe to!
The results I just posted indicate that 1000 buffers is really quite bad
performance comaped to 4000, perhaps up to 100 TPS for selects and 30 TPS
for TPC-B.
Still, that 1000 is in itself vastly better than 64!!
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-12 05:33:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-12 05:27:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-12 05:33:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-12 05:27:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-12 05:33:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-12 05:27:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: |