Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA14A9FB1DD for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:25:39 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16447-09 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:25:25 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFA99FA2E0 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:25:33 -0400 (AST) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1361B56423; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:25:29 -0600 (CST) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:25:23 -0600 Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:25:23 -0600 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Brian Wipf Cc: Tom Lane , Dave Cramer , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Guido Neitzer Subject: Re: shared_buffers > 284263 on OS X Message-ID: <20061126232523.GD39519@nasby.net> References: <82E59D2F-0946-4405-8F11-4CF5184A9399@fastcrypt.com> <412.1163874633@sss.pgh.pa.us> <817D9C4C-05F0-45FB-9D63-B63CFE2C009E@clickspace.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <817D9C4C-05F0-45FB-9D63-B63CFE2C009E@clickspace.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE-p10 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Hashcash: 1:20:061126:brian@clickspace.com::QoZ8CRTaSE5FLk4g:00000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000LZq X-Hashcash: 1:20:061126:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us::y42iy9jQoTpT8BOU:00000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000002gXh X-Hashcash: 1:20:061126:pg@fastcrypt.com::htxWtZQsdiJJZy6J:032j6 X-Hashcash: 1:20:061126:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::fysZlae6IOovbqjG:00000 0000000000000000000000002kyI X-Hashcash: 1:20:061126:lists@event-s.net::TNHvYcWWMZTG2WAt:00000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000009ZtS X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200611/226 X-Sequence-Number: 21996 On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:13:26PM -0700, Brian Wipf wrote: > It certainly is unfortunate if Guido's right and this is an upper > limit for OS X. The performance benefit of having high shared_buffers > on our mostly read database is remarkable. Got any data about that you can share? People have been wondering about cases where drastically increasing shared_buffers makes a difference. -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)