From: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: shared_buffer optimization
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 16:28:04 -0500
Message-ID: <20060809212804.GU40481@pervasive.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87u04nv2q6.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com>
References: <44D86A00.90106@rentalia.com>
<87u04nv2q6.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com>
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:20:01AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> I'm not aware of any actual evidence having emerged that it is of any
> value to set shared buffers higher than 10000.
http://flightaware.com
They saw a large increase in how many concurrent connections they could
handle when they bumped shared_buffers up from ~10% to 50% of memory.
Back then they had 4G of memory. They're up to 12G right now, but
haven't bumped shared_buffers up.
Every single piece of advice I've seen on shared_buffers comes from the
7.x era, when our buffer management was extremely simplistic. IMO all of
that knowledge was made obsolete when 8.0 came out, and our handling of
shared_buffers has improved ever further since then. This is definately
an area that could use a lot more testing.
--
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, cbbrowne@acm.org
Subject: Re: shared_buffer optimization
In-Reply-To: <20060809212804.GU40481@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