From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Adam Ulmer <ulmer(at)soulgamer(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: memory requirements question |
Date: | 1999-08-24 20:36:04 |
Message-ID: | 3729.935526964@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Adam Ulmer <ulmer(at)soulgamer(dot)com> writes:
>> can anyone tell me where I need to look so that I can calculate the
>> amount of shmem req'd by postmaster and N backends?
Easiest way is to try it and see ;-). AFAIR the space allocated per
backend is miniscule compared to the space per disk buffer, so you could
use "8K per buffer plus some constant" as a good first approximation.
If you want to know what the delta per backend is, then try a few
different -N values with fixed -B and look at what ipcs says...
> different invocations of postmaster with -N options set at 16, 32, and
> 1024 (which I gather means -B options of 32, 64, and 2048).
We require a *minimum* of 2 buffers per backend --- if you have too
few buffers then you'd lose performance due to contention for buffers.
More is probably a good idea. The ideal function is probably some fixed
number like a few dozen (to cache the system tables) plus X per backend,
where I suspect X should be more like 5 to 10. But I don't know that
anyone has really tried to measure what a good choice is for -B versus
-N. I've cc'd this to pghackers in case anyone there has results to
share.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-08-24 20:51:58 | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-08-24 20:21:24 | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |