From: Pierre C <lists@peufeu.com>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Dave Crooke <dcrooke@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul McGarry <paul@paulmcgarry.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: shared_buffers advice
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:24:40 +0100
Message-ID: <op.u9nrbeeteorkce@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B9F3302.4020900@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <a056b1d41003101728h2bfe964cg43bf5ef1aabae14d@mail.gmail.com>
<ca24673e1003152217q117b0fd3q7d2d75ff20185c8b@mail.gmail.com>
<4B9F3302.4020900@2ndquadrant.com>
> -My warnings about downsides related to checkpoint issues with larger
> buffer pools isn't an opinion at all; that's a fact based on limitations
> in how Postgres does its checkpoints. If we get something more like
> Oracle's incremental checkpoint logic, this particular concern might go
> away.
Does PG issue checkpoint writes in "sorted" order ?
I wonder about something, too : if your DB size is smaller than RAM, you
could in theory set shared_buffers to a size larger than your DB provided
you still have enough free RAM left for work_mem and OS writes management.
How does this interact with the logic which prevents seq-scans hogging
shared_buffers ?
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: lists@peufeu.com, greg@2ndquadrant.com, dcrooke@gmail.com, paul@paulmcgarry.com
Subject: Re: shared_buffers advice
In-Reply-To: <op.u9nrbeeteorkce@localhost>
* 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