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

Re: effective_cache_size less than shared_buffers

From: Harald Armin Massa <chef(at)ghum(dot)de>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size less than shared_buffers
Date: 2009-02-26 09:14:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Well we won't eliminate any problems unless we actually override the
> effective_cache_size setting by clipping it to shared_buffers. I don't
> really see much of a problem doing that. The only case where that
> would annoy someone was if they're intentionally understating
> effective_cache_size to push the planner into avoiding nested loops
> and I doin't think it's a powerful enough knob to be very likely used
> that way.

My experience from PostgreSQL on Windows: effective_cache_size should
reflect the value of "system cache" from task manager. shared_buffers (on
windows) should be rather small.

My real-workload-tests (no benchmarks, real usage of DB-Server) showed that
big shared buffers on Windows have a negative effect on PostgreSQL
performance. I have found no explanation WHY it is this way.


GHUM Harald Massa
persuadere et programmare
Harald Armin Massa
Spielberger Stra├če 49
70435 Stuttgart
no fx, no carrier pigeon
EuroPython 2009 will take place in Birmingham - Stay tuned!

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2009-02-26 09:20:02
Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery procs
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2009-02-26 08:47:25
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules)

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