| From: | Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Julien Cigar <jcigar(at)ulb(dot)ac(dot)be>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server |
| Date: | 2012-10-10 18:18:49 |
| Message-ID: | 5075BC09.8010006@optionshouse.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 10/10/2012 12:05 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> Why does nobody every mention that concurrent access has to be taken
> into account?
That's actually a good point. But if you have one giant database, the
overlap of which tables are being accessed by various sessions is going
to be immense.
There probably should be a point about this in the docs, though. There
are more and more shared-hosting setups or places that spread their data
horizontally across separate databases for various clients, and in those
cases, parallel usage does not imply overlap.
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2012-10-10 18:24:42 | Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2012-10-10 18:08:00 | Re: Hyperthreading (was: Two identical systems, radically different performance) |