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

Re: shared_buffers performance

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: shared_buffers performance
Date: 2008-04-14 15:42:50
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0804141132580.3587@westnet.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Gaetano Mendola wrote:

> I'm using postgres 8.2.3 on Red Hat compiled with GCC 3.4.6.

8.2.3 has a performance bug that impacts how accurate pgbench results are; 
you really should be using a later version.

> http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=totalid7.png
> as you can see using 64MB as value for shared_buffers I'm obtaining 
> better results.

I'm assuming you've read my scaling article at 
http://www.westnet.com/~gsmith/content/postgresql/pgbench-scaling.htm 
since you're using the graph template I suggest there.

If you look carefully at your results, you are getting better results for 
higher shared_buffers values in the cases where performance is memory 
bound (the lower scale numbers).  Things reverse so that more buffers 
gives worse performance only when your scale >100.  I wouldn't conclude 
too much from that.  The pgbench select test is doing a low-level 
operation that doesn't benefit as much from having more memory available 
to PostgreSQL instead of the OS as a real-world workload will.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2008-04-14 15:44:44
Subject: Re: shared_buffers performance
Previous:From: Bill MoranDate: 2008-04-14 13:12:12
Subject: Re: db size

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