Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Ondrej Ivanič
Subject Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server
Date
Msg-id CAM6mieL2kz96wURo8fXZAbDMD69qxXLzW+-HKUyC4GthEBZhfA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server  (Julien Cigar <jcigar@ulb.ac.be>)
Responses Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server  (Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Hi,

On 10 October 2012 19:11, Julien Cigar <jcigar@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> shared_buffers = 10GB
>
>
> Generally going over 4GB for shared_buffers doesn't help.. some of the
> overhead of bgwriter and checkpoints is more or less linear in the size of
> shared_buffers ..

Nothing is black or white; It's all shades of Grey :) It depends on
workload. In my case external consultants recommended 8GB and I was
able to increase it up to 10GB. This was mostly read-only workload.
From my experience large buffer cache acts as handbrake for
write-heavy workloads.

--
Ondrej Ivanic
(ondrej.ivanic@gmail.com)
(http://www.linkedin.com/in/ondrejivanic)


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Sergey Konoplev
Date:
Subject: Re: hash aggregation
Next
From: Claudio Freire
Date:
Subject: Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server