Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 2GB or not 2GB

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 2GB or not 2GB
Date: 2008-05-29 15:45:14
Message-ID: 1212075914.26576.8.camel@jd-laptop (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:59 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,

> shared_buffers:  according to witnesses, Greg Smith presented at East that 
> based on PostgreSQL's buffer algorithms, buffers above 2GB would not 
> really receive significant use.  However, Jignesh Shah has tested that on 
> workloads with large numbers of connections, allocating up to 10GB 
> improves performance. 

I have seen multiple production systems where upping the buffers up to
6-8GB helps. What I don't know, and what I am guessing Greg is referring
to is if it helps as much as say upping to 2GB. E.g; the scale of
performance increase goes down while the actual performance goes up
(like adding more CPUs).


> 
> sort_mem: My tests with 8.2 and DBT3 seemed to show that, due to 
> limitations of our tape sort algorithm, allocating over 2GB for a single 
> sort had no benefit.  However, Magnus and others have claimed otherwise.  
> Has this improved in 8.3?

I have never see work_mem (there is no sort_mem Josh) do any good above
1GB. Of course, I would never willingly use that much work_mem unless
there was a really good reason that involved a guarantee of not calling
me at 3:00am.

> 
> So, can we have some test evidence here?  And workload descriptions?
> 

Its all, tune now buddy :P

Sinceerely,

Joshua D. Drake




In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Chris ShoemakerDate: 2008-05-29 15:47:34
Subject: Adding "LIMIT 1" kills performance.
Previous:From: Alexey KupershtokhDate: 2008-05-29 09:52:59
Subject: Re: IN() statement values order makes 2x performance hit

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group