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

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-performance by date

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

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