Re: shared_buffer optimization

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: shared_buffer optimization
Date: 2006-08-09 21:28:04
Message-ID: 20060809212804.GU40481@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:20:01AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> I'm not aware of any actual evidence having emerged that it is of any
> value to set shared buffers higher than 10000.

http://flightaware.com

They saw a large increase in how many concurrent connections they could
handle when they bumped shared_buffers up from ~10% to 50% of memory.
Back then they had 4G of memory. They're up to 12G right now, but
haven't bumped shared_buffers up.

Every single piece of advice I've seen on shared_buffers comes from the
7.x era, when our buffer management was extremely simplistic. IMO all of
that knowledge was made obsolete when 8.0 came out, and our handling of
shared_buffers has improved ever further since then. This is definately
an area that could use a lot more testing.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-08-09 21:35:43 Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-08-09 21:20:46 Re: vacuuming