Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: [GENERAL] Total ram size study - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Melvin Davidson
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Total ram size study
Date
Msg-id CANu8Fix97_6XG+tJtme=wC0hxrV2V4VGAf8zx85yXGw4XFEsTA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Total ram size study  (Vick Khera <vivek@khera.org>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Total ram size study  (Marcin Giedz <marcin.giedz@arise.pl>)
List pgsql-general
Tree view
Thanks Vick,

Those were my thoughts as well. Your response gives me something to help convince the client to kick up the hardware.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Vick Khera <vivek@khera.org> wrote:
I've not done a formal study, but I've always found that throwing hardware at the problem does wonders. My current database I made faster by bumping RAM until the entire working set fits in memory. The server has 256GB of RAM, half of which is used by ZFS for its purposes, and the other half for Postgres. The prior iteration of the servers only had 64GB of RAM and the difference was very remarkable.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com> wrote:
Has anyone ever done a study on performance increase via ram increase?
I have a client on AWS with 8GB total ram (2GB shared_buffers), and I am
curious if doubling the ram to 16GB (4GB shared_buffers) will result in
minimizing query response time.

--
Melvin Davidson
I reserve the right to fantasize.  Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.




--
Melvin Davidson
I reserve the right to fantasize.  Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Vick Khera
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Total ram size study
Next
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_basebackup issue