Re: shared_buffers documentation

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: shared_buffers documentation
Date: 2010-04-19 14:21:17
Message-ID: 4BCC208D0200002500030A4E@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 2. Reading the section on checkpoint_segments reminds me, again,
> that the current value seems extremely conservative on modern
> hardware. It's quite easy to hit this when doing large bulk data
> loads or even a big ol' CTAS. I think we should consider raising
> this for 9.1.

Perhaps, but be aware the current default benchmarked better
than a larger setting in bulk loads.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-06/msg01382.php

The apparent reason is that when there were fewer of them the WAL
files were re-used before the RAID controller flushed them from BBU
cache, causing an overall reduction in disk writes. I have little
doubt that *without* a good BBU cached controller a larger setting
is better, but it's not universally true that bigger is better on
this one.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-04-19 14:24:28 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tune GetSnapshotData() during Hot Standby by avoiding loop
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2010-04-19 14:11:29 Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32