Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344122E2FEF for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:38:46 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83606-08 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:38:28 -0400 (AST) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.178]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79712E3008 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:38:41 -0400 (AST) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m38so6369809waf.5 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:38:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=qqjS/zKvqEhgmAGkirznyRGP3o8CA/Gu6CoEcnK8L30=; b=eCvYtI4lOO1P3EwZZcNxoiNksAYgWEFYG8VDKCQ3+dCSouRl/iqA7mGs2aN4UUsjDT5EvTBpo5cEBDql6I97UjQhxMku/5kOAjxDUeZGXpJbbA0Ey6I9dKT6SsHh+uh9wDYlhoWzhe+eRzHp/GUHO9NXXUKpDkhEZOV0CH5evQs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Mh5pFHKItczVHVRfVl3cPUno7N4umaaneDx4cWUtN0d9YR99gywLqYlVTqtNApAXy2M/GD8lXwVCxlI4p+9i+r1Yajz3Vp4qMoDto9V9OMMk33gWyd+G4dtkbZyM16ePe818YCwJ0veBAZQvq2ZRSuY/kgM8F83s0f9LmU59Afw= Received: by 10.115.14.1 with SMTP id r1mr7115789wai.31.1198924720574; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:38:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.155.9 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:38:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1d4e0c10712290238h43ab2c2bw1ae3de4e55267d2f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:38:40 +0100 From: "Guillaume Smet" To: "Tom Lane" Subject: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" , "Greg Smith" , "Gregory Stark" , pgsql-performance , "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" , "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Devrim_G=DCND=DCZ?=" In-Reply-To: <19157.1198781668@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1d4e0c10712260741w1f141fd6x2f482143d526ad48@mail.gmail.com> <1d4e0c10712261453s4b171452g8aa30a1124f8fff1@mail.gmail.com> <29359.1198735829@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20071227132002.GC5709@alvh.no-ip.org> <87fxxow5qb.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <11851.1198771478@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20071227165046.GJ5709@alvh.no-ip.org> <19157.1198781668@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200712/422 X-Sequence-Number: 28238 On Dec 27, 2007 7:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I concur with Greg Stark's earlier comment that this is all > overreaction. Let's just fix the misleading comment in the > documentation and leave it at that. IMHO, we should also have a special tag for all the binaries distributed with these options on the official website (RPM or not). If the RPM packages' version has been tagged .debug or something like that, it would have been the first thing I checked. I like Gregory's idea to add a warning in pgbench. I usually run a few pgbench tests to check there is no obvious problem even if I use another more complicated benchmark afterwards. I don't know if that's what other people do, though. -- Guillaume