| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | sriram(dot)dandapani(at)bt(dot)com |
| Cc: | fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com, postgresql(at)tisc(dot)de, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Setting Shared-Buffers |
| Date: | 2009-07-11 05:19:21 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10907102219n324ec02dn1d9acebcc67ed3c8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:27 PM, <sriram(dot)dandapani(at)bt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 2G per process is plenty ...and useful if you have large data warehouse style queries which are long running (especially multiple of those)
For you, yes. But not necessarily for others.
> We do benefit from the Linux memory caching model regardless of what Postgres uses right ?
Definitely.
> On a machine which we upgraded from 4G to 16G on a 32 bit PAE kernel...we saw a doubling of performance for most queries of a certain type.(mostly data warehouse type accessing several hundreds of thousands of records).
>
> Postgres version that we use is 8.1.9.
I bet you'd see another big performance improvement with a 64bit OS
and pgsql AND an upgrade to 8.4. But if it's fast enough, then stick
to 8.1.x I would recommend an update to the latest 8.1 release
though.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Iñigo Martinez Lasala | 2009-07-11 14:05:30 | Re: Setting Shared-Buffers |
| Previous Message | sriram.dandapani | 2009-07-11 04:27:19 | Re: Setting Shared-Buffers |