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 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F653854@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
Tree view 
From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila
> > 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.
> >
> 
> It is difficult to say why the performance drops at 512MB, it could be
> run-to-run variation.  How long have you run each test?

5 minutes (-T 300).  I avoided 20-30 minutes runs for fear of wearing out and destroying my disk...

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep.