Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F64F955@G01JPEXMBYT05
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows  ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
Responses Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
From: Tsunakawa, Takayuki/綱川 貴之
> Thank you, I'll try the read-write test with these settings on the weekend,
> when my PC is available.  I understood that your intention is to avoid being
> affected by checkpointing and WAL segment creation.

The result looks nice as follows.  I took the mean value of three runs.

shared_buffers  tps
256MB  990
512MB  813
1GB  1189
2GB  2258
4GB  5003
8GB  5062

"512MB is the largest effective size" seems to be a superstition, although I don't know the reason for the drop at
512MB.


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)
Next
From: Corey Huinker
Date:
Subject: dblink get_connect_string() passes FDW option "updatable" to the connect string, connection fails.