From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgresql on an AMD64 machine
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:51:50 -0400
Message-ID: <20050608095149.GB19513@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26813.1118202633@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1118080420.1644.23.camel@penguin1>
<20050607202755.GA28361@surnet.cl>
<18285.1118178689@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<200506072005.47418.josh@agliodbs.com>
<26813.1118202633@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:50:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Again, let's see some evidence that it's worth putting effort into that.
>(Offhand it seems this is probably an easier fix than changing the
>shared-memory allocation code; but conventional wisdom is that really
>large values of work_mem are a bad idea, and I'm not sure I see the case
>for maintenance_work_mem above 2Gb either.)
Hmm. That would be a fairly hard thing to test, no? I wouldn't expect to
see a smooth curve as the value is increased--I'd expect it to remain
fairly flat until you hit the sweet spot where you can fit the whole
working set into RAM. When you say "2Gb", does that imply that the
memory allocation limit in 8.1 has been increased from 1G-1?
Mike Stone
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mstone+postgres@mathom.us
Subject: Re: Postgresql on an AMD64 machine
In-Reply-To: <20050608095149.GB19513@mathom.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