Re: Kernel cache vs shared_buffers
От | Harald Armin Massa |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Kernel cache vs shared_buffers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7be3f35d0705130257o1ce62db6t7512e964a99c23f2@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Kernel cache vs shared_buffers (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Kernel cache vs shared_buffers
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Heikki, > > PostgreSQL on Windows. My current rule of thumb on Windows: set > > shared_buffers to minimum * 2 > > Adjust effective_cache_size to the number given as "system cache" > > within the task manager. > > Why? I tried with shared_buffers = 50% of available memory, and with 30% of available memory, and the thoughput on complex queries stalled or got worse. I lowered shared_buffers to minimum, and started raising effective_cache_size, and performance on real world queries improved. pg_bench did not fully agree when simulating large numbers concurrent queries. So I tried setting shared_buffers between minimum and 2.5*minimum, and pg_bench speeds recovered and real world queries did similiar. My understanding is that shared_buffers are realised as memory mapped file in win32; and that they are only usually kept in memory. Maybe I understood that wrong. Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Reinsburgstraße 202b 70197 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 fx 01212-5-13695179 - Python: the only language with more web frameworks than keywords.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: