From: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Anthony Presley <anthony@resolution.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:08:10 -0500
Message-ID: <20060613200810.GZ34196@pervasive.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060613000441.GI8588@kenobi.snowman.net>
References: <1150151282.14661.42.camel@tigger>
<20060613000441.GI8588@kenobi.snowman.net>
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:04:41PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> don't think). This is because Postgres lets the OS handle most of the
> cacheing, so as long as your OS can see all the memory you have in the
Actually, in 8.1.x I've seen some big wins from greatly increasing the
amount of shared_buffers, even as high as 50% of memory, thanks to the
changes made to the buffer management code. I'd strongly advice users to
benchmark their applications with higher shared_buffers and see what
impact it has, especially if your application can't make use of really
big work_mem settings. If there's additional changes to the shared
buffer code in 8.2 (I know Tom's been looking at doing multiple buffer
pools to reduce contention on the BufMgr lock), it'd be worth
re-benchmarking when it comes out.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
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: jnasby@pervasive.com, anthony@resolution.com
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
In-Reply-To: <20060613200810.GZ34196@pervasive.com>
* 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