From: Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Large table performance
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 02:33:42 +0100
Message-ID: <20070113013342.GB3133@uio.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87553E39-54EA-4DE4-BBEF-6FB250EDE651@fastcrypt.com>
References: <376735.48483.qm@web35309.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
<87553E39-54EA-4DE4-BBEF-6FB250EDE651@fastcrypt.com>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 07:40:25PM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> 5000 is pretty low, you need at least 1/4 of memory for an 8.1.x or
> newer server.
Is this the new "common wisdom"? It looks like at some point, someone here
said "oh, and it looks like you're better off using large values here for
8.1.x and newer", and now everybody seems to repeat it as if it was always
well-known.
Are there any real benchmarks out there that we can point to? And, if you set
shared_buffers to half of the available memory, won't the kernel cache
duplicate more or less exactly the same data? (At least that's what people
used to say around here, but I guess the kernel cache gets adapted to the
fact that Postgres won't ask for the most common stuff, ie. the one in the
shared buffer cache.)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
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: sgunderson@bigfoot.com
Subject: Re: Large table performance
In-Reply-To: <20070113013342.GB3133@uio.no>
* 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