Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tsunakawa, Takayuki
Subject Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows
Date
Msg-id 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F64035F@G01JPEXMBYT05
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows
List pgsql-hackers
From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila
> Okay, not a problem.  However, I am not sure the results in this thread
> are sufficient proof as for read-only tests, there is no noticeable win
> by increasing shared buffers and read-write tests seems to be quite short
> (60 seconds) to rely on it.

I think the reason why increasing shared_buffers didn't give better performance for read-only tests than you expect is
thatthe relation files are cached in the filesystem cache.  The purpose of this verification is to know that the
effectiveupper limit is not 512MB (which is too small now), and I think the purpose is achieved.  There may be another
threshold,say 32GB or 128GB, over which the performance degrades due to PostgreSQL implementation, but that's another
topicwhich also applies to other OSes.
 

How about 3 minutes for read-write tests?  How long do you typically run?

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Okano, Naoki"
Date:
Subject: Adding the optional clause 'AS' in CREATE TRIGGER
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Pinning a buffer in TupleTableSlot is unnecessary