Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server

From: Ondrej Ivanič <ondrej(dot)ivanic(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Julien Cigar <jcigar(at)ulb(dot)ac(dot)be>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server
Date: 2012-10-10 22:06:09
Message-ID: CAM6mieL2kz96wURo8fXZAbDMD69qxXLzW+-HKUyC4GthEBZhfA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Hi,

On 10 October 2012 19:11, Julien Cigar <jcigar(at)ulb(dot)ac(dot)be> wrote:
>> shared_buffers = 10GB
>
>
> Generally going over 4GB for shared_buffers doesn't help.. some of the
> overhead of bgwriter and checkpoints is more or less linear in the size of
> shared_buffers ..

Nothing is black or white; It's all shades of Grey :) It depends on
workload. In my case external consultants recommended 8GB and I was
able to increase it up to 10GB. This was mostly read-only workload.
>From my experience large buffer cache acts as handbrake for
write-heavy workloads.

--
Ondrej Ivanic
(ondrej(dot)ivanic(at)gmail(dot)com)
(http://www.linkedin.com/in/ondrejivanic)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2012-10-10 22:14:45 Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server
Previous Message Sergey Konoplev 2012-10-10 21:30:09 Re: hash aggregation