shared_buffers in 8.3 w/ lots of RAM on dedicated PG machine - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Peter Schuller
Subject shared_buffers in 8.3 w/ lots of RAM on dedicated PG machine
Date
Msg-id 20080215123528.GA16532@hyperion.scode.org
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: shared_buffers in 8.3 w/ lots of RAM on dedicated PG machine  (Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>)
List pgsql-performance
Hello,

my impression has been that in the past, there has been a general
semi-consensus that upping shared_buffers to use the majority of RAM
has not generally been recommended, with reliance on the buffer cache
instead being the recommendation.

Given the changes that have gone into 8.3, in particular with regards
to minimizing the impact of large sequential scans, would it be
correct to say that given that

  - enough memory is left for other PG bits (sort mems and whatnot else)
  - only PG is running on the machine
  - you're on 64 bit so do not run into address space issues
  - the database working set is larger than RAM

it would be generally advisable to pump up shared_buffers pretty much
as far as possible instead of relying on the buffer cache?

--
/ Peter Schuller

PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to getpgpkey@scode.org
E-Mail: peter.schuller@infidyne.com Web: http://www.scode.org


Attachment

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "David Crane"
Date:
Subject: Re: Avoid long-running transactions in a long-runningstored procedure?
Next
From: Kenneth Marshall
Date:
Subject: Re: shared_buffers in 8.3 w/ lots of RAM on dedicated PG machine