From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Glenn Sullivan <glenn.sullivan@varianinc.com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: shared buffers
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:08:49 -0400
Message-ID: <28074.1098738529@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <417D629C.7000805@varianinc.com>
References: <417D629C.7000805@varianinc.com>
Glenn Sullivan <glenn.sullivan@varianinc.com> writes:
> What is the performance issue with setting shared_buffers to something like 45?
> In doing some timing on my system, I cannot tell any difference with 45 versus 1000.
What are you timing exactly? Almost every benchmark I've ever seen is
much happier with shared_buffers of at least a few hundred. Otherwise
you spend too much time copying data between kernel and user space.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, glenn.sullivan@varianinc.com
Subject: Re: shared buffers
In-Reply-To: <28074.1098738529@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox