Re: [HACKERS] v6.1 buffers and performance

Hmm..I was running it on a machine with 192Mb ram..and performance was
pretty good....:)
Speaking of memory, I dumped my current database out, then loaded it under
Purify-watched backend (psql -d igor < db.out)...
After it was done there were several array bounds read errors, one array
bounds write error (bad!!) and almost 300K of leaked memory...I am not
sure whether this memory stays allocated when the spawned backend
terminates, so I don't know whether it really affects anything..Array
errors are important though...Array bounds reads would read/return
garbage data, and array bounds writes could overwrite data...

=+=------------------------/\---------------------------------=+=
       Igor Natanzon      |**|   E-mail: igor@sba.miami.edu
=+=------------------------\/---------------------------------=+=

On Sun, 8 Jun 1997, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:

> I upgraded my Linux box to have 96MB of memory, up from 32MB ($250, who
> would have believed _that_ a few years ago).
>
> There is a significant difference in Postgres performance, with the
> regression tests taking ~5:15 to complete vs. ~6:20 before the upgrade
> for a 17% speed improvement. There is little or no evidence for gross
> degradation of performance with repeated runs of the regression test, as
> I had reported earlier. So, the conclusion is that more memory is better
> (duh!) and that as the buffer gets filled or fragmented smaller memory
> machines start swapping.
>
>             - Tom
>

------------------------------