Re: random_page_cost vs seq_page_cost - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: random_page_cost vs seq_page_cost
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1yDvRJ-C1bdcdpV8dXqWKn4KeeX3tZXTaOttB8q6kHH+A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: random_page_cost vs seq_page_cost  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: random_page_cost vs seq_page_cost  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> I was initially concerned that tuning advice in this part of the docs
> would look out of place, but now see the 25% shared_buffers
> recommentation, and it looks fine, so we are OK.  (Should we caution
> against more than 8GB of shared buffers?  I don't see that in the docs.)

Has it ever been well-characterized what the problem is with >8GB?
I've used shared buffers above that size for testing purposes and
could never provoke a problem with it.

Cheers,

Jeff


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: random_page_cost vs seq_page_cost
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: some longer, larger pgbench tests with various performance-related patches