Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Ondrej Ivanič
Тема Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server
Дата
Msg-id CAM6mieL2kz96wURo8fXZAbDMD69qxXLzW+-HKUyC4GthEBZhfA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server  (Julien Cigar <jcigar@ulb.ac.be>)
Ответы Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server  (Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-performance
Hi,

On 10 October 2012 19:11, Julien Cigar <jcigar@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> shared_buffers = 10GB
>
>
> Generally going over 4GB for shared_buffers doesn't help.. some of the
> overhead of bgwriter and checkpoints is more or less linear in the size of
> shared_buffers ..

Nothing is black or white; It's all shades of Grey :) It depends on
workload. In my case external consultants recommended 8GB and I was
able to increase it up to 10GB. This was mostly read-only workload.
From my experience large buffer cache acts as handbrake for
write-heavy workloads.

--
Ondrej Ivanic
(ondrej.ivanic@gmail.com)
(http://www.linkedin.com/in/ondrejivanic)


В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Sergey Konoplev
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: hash aggregation
Следующее
От: Claudio Freire
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server