| 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: | 2016-11-21 02:16:06 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F653854@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila
> > 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.
> >
>
> It is difficult to say why the performance drops at 512MB, it could be
> run-to-run variation. How long have you run each test?
5 minutes (-T 300). I avoided 20-30 minutes runs for fear of wearing out and destroying my disk...
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-11-21 03:12:07 | Re: WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep. |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-11-21 02:08:50 | Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows |