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

2GB or not 2GB

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: 2GB or not 2GB
Date: 2008-05-28 23:59:26
Message-ID: 200805281659.26945.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Folks,

Subsequent to my presentation of the new annotated.conf at pgCon last week, 
there's been some argument about the utility of certain memory settings 
above 2GB.  I'd like to hash those out on this list so that we can make 
some concrete recomendations to users.

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. 

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?

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

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Steve CrawfordDate: 2008-05-29 00:04:37
Subject: Re: 2GB or not 2GB
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-05-28 23:41:46
Subject: Re: Creating large database of MD5 hash values

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