Re: The shared buffers challenge

From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: The shared buffers challenge
Date: 2011-05-27 22:12:10
Message-ID: BANLkTi==gVspoNFSj1=QYmhSQVc_svf=YQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda(at)truviso(dot)com> wrote:
> Another +1. While I understand that this is not simple, many users
> will not look outside of standard docs, especially when first
> evaluating PostgreSQL. Merlin is right that the current wording does
> not really mention a down side to cranking shared_buffers on a system
> with plenty of RAM.

If you read the whole docs it does.

If you read caching, checkpoints, WAL, all of it, you can connect the dots.
It isn't easy, but database management isn't easy.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2011-05-27 23:24:43 Re: serveRAID M5014 SAS
Previous Message Maciek Sakrejda 2011-05-27 19:24:38 Re: The shared buffers challenge