Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E009164FDF3 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:21:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60041-03-5 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:21:42 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: delayed 00:21:10.073418 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from genome.chop.edu (genome.chop.edu [159.14.240.241]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1C264FE3B for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:20:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by genome.chop.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3223E195ECF8; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:59:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at genome.chop.edu Received: from genome.chop.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (genome.chop.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fOmQY2jdrLya; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:59:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kevinland.local (unknown [159.14.224.39]) by genome.chop.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B081D195ECE8; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:59:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <48F4B3C2.1050805@genome.chop.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:59:14 -0400 From: Kevin Murphy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Smith Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TWlra2VsIEjDuGdo?= , pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Drupal and PostgreSQL - performance issues? References: <2434A118-CEFA-43A9-BA88-006EC1F80326@hoegh.org> <200810122214.53558.uwe@oss4u.com> <20081013090228.248a665f@dawn.webthatworks.it> <20081014114011.0ebe495a@dawn.webthatworks.it> <3250B5B6-B507-4E79-BAF0-E98B73E9FED9@hoegh.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200810/543 X-Sequence-Number: 138792 Greg Smith wrote: > On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Mikkel H�gh wrote: > >> You are targetting DBAs using servers with less than 512 MB RAM. Is >> PostgreSQL supposed to be used by professional DBAs on enterprise >> systems or is it supposed to run out of the box on my old Pentium 3? > > you'll discover that the Linux default for how much memory an > application like PostgreSQL can allocate is 32MB. This is true even if > you install the OS on a system with 128GB of RAM. One thing that might help people swallow the off-putting default "toy mode" performance of PostgreSQL would be an explanation of why PostgreSQL uses its shared memory architecture in the first place. How much of a performance or stability advantage does it confer under what database usage and hardware scenarios? How can any such claims be proven except by writing a bare-bones database server from scratch that can use multiple memory models? -Kevin Murphy