From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
To: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
Cc: Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@mnc.ch>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: increasing shared buffers: how much should be removed
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:31:59 -0400
Message-ID: <b42b73150609050631o71806eer6a2467e2355ddcea@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44F8CF32.9040606@commandprompt.com>
References: <87veo7a5dn.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan>
<b42b73150609011249p612ccd27gbb5ee4db9b5b10f4@mail.gmail.com>
<E3AD303F-06FE-4034-A176-3F532720A386@fastcrypt.com>
<44F8CF32.9040606@commandprompt.com>
On 9/1/06, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think 'shared buffers' is one of the most overrated settings from a
> >> performance standpoint. however you must ensure there is enough for
> >> things the server does besides caching. It used to be a bigger deal
> >> than it is in modern versionf of postgresql modern operating systems.
>
> Previous to 8.1 I would agree with you, but as of 8.1 it is probably the
> most underrated.
really? what are the relative advantages of raising shared buffers? I
was thinking maybe there might be less context switches in high load
environments...I'm really curious what you have to say here.
merlin
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: mmoncure@gmail.com, jd@commandprompt.com, pg@fastcrypt.com, gc@mnc.ch
Subject: Re: increasing shared buffers: how much should be removed
In-Reply-To: <b42b73150609050631o71806eer6a2467e2355ddcea@mail.gmail.com>
* 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