Re: shared_buffers > 284263 on OS X

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Brian Wipf <brian(at)clickspace(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Guido Neitzer <lists(at)event-s(dot)net>
Subject: Re: shared_buffers > 284263 on OS X
Date: 2006-11-26 23:25:23
Message-ID: 20061126232523.GD39519@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:13:26PM -0700, Brian Wipf wrote:
> It certainly is unfortunate if Guido's right and this is an upper
> limit for OS X. The performance benefit of having high shared_buffers
> on our mostly read database is remarkable.

Got any data about that you can share? People have been wondering about
cases where drastically increasing shared_buffers makes a difference.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-11-26 23:30:56 Re: availability of SATA vendors
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-11-26 17:47:38 Re: When to vacuum a table?