Re: Big Memory Boxes and pgtune - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: Big Memory Boxes and pgtune
Date
Msg-id bf50d943-d1a3-e87d-a91d-376434481b22@BlueTreble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Big Memory Boxes and pgtune  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Big Memory Boxes and pgtune  (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On 10/28/16 2:33 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> * A very high shared_buffers (in newer releases, it is not uncommon to
> have many, many GB of)

Keep in mind that you might get very poor results if shared_buffers is
large, but not large enough to fit the entire database. In that case
buffer replacement will be *extremely* expensive. Some operations will
use a different buffer replacement strategy, so you might be OK if some
of the database doesn't fit in shared buffers; that will depend a lot on
your access patterns.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)   mobile: 512-569-9461


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: query slowdown after 9.0 -> 9.4 migration
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: no MCV list of tiny table with unique columns