Greg Smith wrote:
>Was working on some documentation today and I realized that I've taken for
>granted the lore about not using large values for shared_buffers in
>Windows without ever understanding why. Can someone explain what the
>underlying mechanism that causes that limitation is? From poking the
>archives I got the impression it was some page mapping issue but details
>are elusive.
All I can offer is Magnus' explanation: "All evidence I've seen points to that
you should have shared_buffers as *small* as possible on win32, because memory
access there is slow. And leave more of the caching up to the OS."
<http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-10/msg01115.php>
Heikki said something similar here:
<http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2007-10/msg00242.php>
Rainer