Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C6D633DDE for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:24:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18724-01-5 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:24:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-gw0-f46.google.com (mail-gw0-f46.google.com [74.125.83.46]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 849CA633E38 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:23:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: by gwaa18 with SMTP id a18so4784222gwa.19 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:23:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0v+vTjW/p9xEVnCT+d9G6uYGkUsRUJ7buDdJE7vM3OY=; b=XewQaFF+L35RJYh/r4PSMrmkZQJFKXtV9tAeITKfyULqgSlCSNZZPa8sX4VyP5zzRo 8F1tF3vlERY2OYP1724dSyUzk0KJ8KF97zdMo5fbwCoVXeyKu2KbGjFT5Xj3yLuqZC15 9HbaENpcZtJj8E7KwCyE4MwMLRQj6v6OkkZp8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=GTxv4PwqQYAPIkmaA/VC92oEhsT5jdd6fN6FKmgm/z8UAN20HG22b6KyWepIFCvwa5 8tW5xg0V/xbWuxVkpkBmOiWlO9vNTV2xmAS44JS0HzPPgbLwdQLfe52I5V6DEopJENrw l1TSqukTpCFERhh3u3oge9lm49yOPjvXO9lvc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.32.12 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:23:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7965A9DCF12CC14984420BCC37B1608F25AB1AEE51@Elzar.grant.co.uk> References: <7965A9DCF12CC14984420BCC37B1608F25AB1AED49@Elzar.grant.co.uk> <1269959369.15416.5.camel@deimos> <20100330143831.GE17567@easy5.in-chemnitz.de> <7965A9DCF12CC14984420BCC37B1608F25AB1AEE51@Elzar.grant.co.uk> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:23:49 -0600 Received: by 10.90.4.24 with SMTP id 24mr3613905agd.48.1269962629988; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37d451f71003300823n2b9e3707n16676c41cb8883a9@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Migrate postgres to newer hardware From: Rosser Schwarz To: Renato Oliveira Cc: Tino Schwarze , "pgsql-admin@postgresql.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.74 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_20=-0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/252 X-Sequence-Number: 34051 On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Renato Oliveira wrote: > If I use postgres 32 bit will it benefit from the extra memory on the system? Indirectly, yes. No individual PG process will be able to address more than 4 gbytes of memory. Assuming you have a 64-bit OS living underneath, however, that may not matter much. You'll potentially be somewhat constrained in the sane values you can use for shared_buffers (which, on a 16 gbyte box for example, I'd probably start in the 4 gbyte range and tune from there -- not an option in a 32-bit install). But leaving aside effective_cache_size (and, as mentioned, potentially shared_buffers), none of your config values are likely to approach the 4 gbyte boundary -- and in the case of effective_cache_size, that isn't actually directly addressed by postgres, anyway. It's just used by the planner to calculate the likelihood of a given page it needs being in the OS buffer cache, instead of on disk. I've had production systems with a 32-bit postgres running quite happily on a 64-bit OS. rls -- :wq