Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 2GB or not 2GB

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 2GB or not 2GB
Date: 2008-05-29 01:06:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Josh Berkus wrote:

> shared_buffers:  according to witnesses, Greg Smith presented at East that
> based on PostgreSQL's buffer algorithms, buffers above 2GB would not
> really receive significant use.  However, Jignesh Shah has tested that on
> workloads with large numbers of connections, allocating up to 10GB
> improves performance.

Lies!  The only upper-limit for non-Windows platforms I mentioned was 
suggesting those recent tests at Sun showed a practical limit in the low 
multi-GB range.

I've run with 4GB usefully for one of the multi-TB systems I manage, the 
main index on the most frequently used table is 420GB and anything I can 
do to keep the most popular parts of that pegged in memory seems to help. 
I haven't tried to isolate the exact improvement going from 2GB to 4GB 
with benchmarks though.

* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com Baltimore, MD

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jignesh K. ShahDate: 2008-05-29 02:54:13
Subject: Re: 2GB or not 2GB
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-05-29 00:25:57
Subject: Re: 2GB or not 2GB

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group