Re: The never ending quest for clarity on shared_buffers

From: Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)refractions(dot)net>
To: Doug Y <dylists(at)ptd(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: The never ending quest for clarity on shared_buffers
Date: 2004-10-06 22:26:47
Message-ID: 41647127.3060407@refractions.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Doug Y wrote:

> For idle persistent connections, do each of them allocate the memory
> specified by this setting (shared_buffers * 8k), or is it one pool used
> by all the connection (which seems the logical conclusion based on the
> name SHARED_buffers)? Personally I'm more inclined to think the latter
> choice, but I've seen references that alluded to both cases, but never a
> definitive answer.

The shared_buffers are shared (go figure) :). It is all one pool shared
by all connections. The sort_mem and vacuum_mem are *per*connection*
however, so when allocating that size you have to take into account your
expected number of concurrent connections.

Paul

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gaetano Mendola 2004-10-06 23:48:22 Re: Excessive context switching on SMP Xeons
Previous Message Gabriele Bartolini 2004-10-06 21:36:05 Data warehousing requirements