Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:08:10 -0500
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Anthony Presley <anthony@resolution.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?
Message-ID: <20060613200810.GZ34196@pervasive.com>
References: <1150151282.14661.42.camel@tigger>
	<20060613000441.GI8588@kenobi.snowman.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060613000441.GI8588@kenobi.snowman.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11

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