From: | Alexey Vasiliev <leopard_ne(at)inbox(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com> |
Cc: | 'Josh Berkus' <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re[2]: [PERFORM] pgtune + configurations with 9.3 |
Date: | 2014-11-14 19:10:24 |
Message-ID: | 1415992224.324747668@f354.i.mail.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:06:54 +0000 от Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com>:
> Alexey,
>
> The issue is not that 8GB is the maximum. You *can* set it higher. What I'm saying, and I'm not alone in this, is that setting it higher can actually decrease performance for various reasons. Setting it to 25% of memory on a system with 512GB of RAM for instance, would be tantamount to disaster. A checkpoint with a setting that high could overwhelm pretty much any disk controller and end up completely ruining DB performance. And that's just *one* of the drawbacks.
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
Ok. Just need to know what think another developers about this - should pgtune care about this case? Because I am not sure, what users with 512GB will use pgtune.
--
Alexey Vasiliev
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2014-11-14 23:00:28 | Re: pgtune + configurations with 9.3 |
Previous Message | Shaun Thomas | 2014-11-14 17:06:54 | Re: pgtune + configurations with 9.3 |