Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
Subject: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances
Date: 2007-12-26 17:12:21
Message-ID: 162867790712260912p1e00dd75yfaebf6fffe6d2403@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Hello

I tested it and it is true. In my configuration 1GRam, Fedora 8, is
PostgreSQL most fast with 32M shared buffers :(. Diff is about 5% to
256M

Regards
Pavel Stehule

On 26/12/2007, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2007 12:21 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > bgwriter_lru_maxpages = 0
> >
> > So we can see if the bgwriter has any hand in this?
>
> It doesn't change the behaviour I have.
>
> It's not checkpointing either as using pgbench-tools, I can see that
> tps and latency are quite stable during the entire run. Btw, thanks
> Greg for these nice tools.
>
> I thought it may be some sort of lock contention so I made a few tests
> with -N but I have the same behaviour.
>
> Then I decided to perform read-only tests using -S option (pgbench -S
> -s 100 -c 16 -t 30000 -U postgres bench). And still the same
> behaviour:
> shared_buffers=64MB : 20k tps
> shared_buffers=1024MB : 8k tps
>
> Any other idea?
>
> --
> Guillaume
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Smet 2007-12-26 17:20:15 Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances
Previous Message Mark Mielke 2007-12-26 16:23:28 Re: With 4 disks should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 10