Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA492E313D for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:54:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62725-01-4 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:54:08 -0400 (AST) Received: from westnet.com (westnet.com [216.187.52.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2F12E0151 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:54:00 -0400 (AST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBRFrhJU011529; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:53:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (gsmith@localhost) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id lBRFrht7011519; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:53:43 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: westnet.com: gsmith owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:53:43 -0500 (EST) From: Greg Smith X-X-Sender: gsmith@westnet.com To: Gregory Stark cc: Alvaro Herrera , Tom Lane , Guillaume Smet , pgsql-performance , Stefan Kaltenbrunner , Devrim =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= Subject: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances In-Reply-To: <87fxxow5qb.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> Message-ID: References: <1d4e0c10712251606q6f9503deye3da4b68c51bf5e@mail.gmail.com> <1198668065.4221.288.camel@ebony.site> <1d4e0c10712260741w1f141fd6x2f482143d526ad48@mail.gmail.com> <1d4e0c10712261352j2fbcd25ek1270331468d824b4@mail.gmail.com> <1d4e0c10712261453s4b171452g8aa30a1124f8fff1@mail.gmail.com> <29359.1198735829@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20071227132002.GC5709@alvh.no-ip.org> <87fxxow5qb.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200712/411 X-Sequence-Number: 28227 On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Gregory Stark wrote: > Fwiw I think you're all getting a bit caught up in this one context. I lost a day once over this problem. Guillaume lost at least that much. Sounds like Magnus and Dave got a good sized dose as well. Seems like something worth warning people about to me. The worst time people can run into a performance regression is when they're running a popular benchmarking tool. I didn't think this was a big problem because I thought it was limited to developers who shot their own foot, but if there are packagers turning this on to improve beta feedback it deserves some wider mention. As for the suggestion that people don't read the documentation, take a look at the above list of developers and tell me whether that group is aware of what's in the docs or not. I had never seen anyone bring this up before I ran into it, and I dumped a strong warning into http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/Working_with_CVS#Initial_setup so at least it was written down somewhere. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD