| From: | Brendan Duddridge <brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim C(dot) Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Brian Wipf <brian(at)clickspace(dot)com>, 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: | 2006-11-27 03:20:52 |
| Message-ID: | D3861A42-C8A2-42C7-ABCB-494BED477819@clickspace.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I think the main issue is that we can't seem to get PostgreSQL
compiled for 64 bit on OS X on an Xserve G5. Has anyone done that?
We have 8 GB of RAM on that server, but we can't seem to utilize it
all. At least not for the shared_buffers setting.
Thanks,
____________________________________________________________________
Brendan Duddridge | CTO | 403-277-5591 x24 | brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com
ClickSpace Interactive Inc.
Suite L100, 239 - 10th Ave. SE
Calgary, AB T2G 0V9
On Nov 26, 2006, at 4:25 PM, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 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)
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-27 04:04:16 | Re: shared_buffers > 284263 on OS X |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-11-27 01:01:35 | Re: When to vacuum a table? |