Re: shared_buffers > 284263 on OS X

On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:13:26PM -0700, Brian Wipf wrote:
> It certainly is unfortunate if Guido's right and this is an upper
> limit for OS X. The performance benefit of having high shared_buffers
> on our mostly read database is remarkable.

Got any data about that you can share? People have been wondering about
cases where drastically increasing shared_buffers makes a difference.
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)