Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christopher Kings-Lynne
Subject Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]
Date
Msg-id GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOCEICCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> >> We could retarget to try to stay under SHMMAX=4M, which I think is
> >> the next boundary that's significant in terms of real-world platforms
> >> (isn't that the default SHMMAX on some BSDen?).  That would allow us
> >> 350 or so shared_buffers, which is better, but still not really a
> >> serious choice for production work.
>
> > What is a serious choice for production work?
>
> Well, as I commented later in that mail, I feel that 1000 buffers is
> a reasonable choice --- but I have to admit that I have no hard data
> to back up that feeling.  Perhaps we should take this to the
> pgsql-perform list and argue about reasonable choices.

Damn. Another list I have to subscribe to!

The results I just posted indicate that 1000 buffers is really quite bad
performance comaped to 4000, perhaps up to 100 TPS for selects and 30 TPS
for TPC-B.

Still, that 1000 is in itself vastly better than 64!!

Chris



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]
Next
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]