Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 'Magnus Hagander' <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 'Jeff Janes' <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows
Date: 2016-11-20 23:52:22
Message-ID: 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F64F955@G01JPEXMBYT05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: Tsunakawa, Takayuki/綱川 貴之
> Thank you, I'll try the read-write test with these settings on the weekend,
> when my PC is available. I understood that your intention is to avoid being
> affected by checkpointing and WAL segment creation.

The result looks nice as follows. I took the mean value of three runs.

shared_buffers tps
256MB 990
512MB 813
1GB 1189
2GB 2258
4GB 5003
8GB 5062

"512MB is the largest effective size" seems to be a superstition, although I don't know the reason for the drop at 512MB.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Corey Huinker 2016-11-21 00:37:15 dblink get_connect_string() passes FDW option "updatable" to the connect string, connection fails.
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-11-20 23:42:05 Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)