From: Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: shared_buffers in 8.3 w/ lots of RAM on dedicated PG machine
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:35:29 +0100
Message-ID: <20080215123528.GA16532@hyperion.scode.org> (raw)
Hello,
my impression has been that in the past, there has been a general
semi-consensus that upping shared_buffers to use the majority of RAM
has not generally been recommended, with reliance on the buffer cache
instead being the recommendation.
Given the changes that have gone into 8.3, in particular with regards
to minimizing the impact of large sequential scans, would it be
correct to say that given that
- enough memory is left for other PG bits (sort mems and whatnot else)
- only PG is running on the machine
- you're on 64 bit so do not run into address space issues
- the database working set is larger than RAM
it would be generally advisable to pump up shared_buffers pretty much
as far as possible instead of relying on the buffer cache?
--
/ Peter Schuller
PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to getpgpkey@scode.org
E-Mail: peter.schuller@infidyne.com Web: http://www.scode.org
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: peter.schuller@infidyne.com
Subject: Re: shared_buffers in 8.3 w/ lots of RAM on dedicated PG machine
In-Reply-To: <20080215123528.GA16532@hyperion.scode.org>
* 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