Re: Will higher shared_buffers improve tpcb-like benchmarks?
| От | Joe Mirabal |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Will higher shared_buffers improve tpcb-like benchmarks? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKTs06bNfkBsSwzbJixF1PQ3x0DdrFJnWcm=v=Unsaj53Gxn+g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Will higher shared_buffers improve tpcb-like benchmarks? (Saurabh Nanda <saurabhnanda@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
Please remove me from this list Serv. I do not use this db anymore and fills my alerts daily.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:39 Saurabh Nanda <saurabhnanda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,I'm going crazy trying to optimise my Postgres config for a production setting [1] Once I realised random changes weren't getting my anywhere, I finally purchased PostgreSQL 10 - Higher Performance [2] and understood the impact of shared_buffers.IIUC, shared_buffers won't have any significant impact in the following scenario, right?-- DB size = 30GB-- shared_buffers = 2GB-- workload = tpcb-likeThis is because the tpcb-like workload selects & updates random rows from the DB [3]. Therefore, with a 2GB shared buffer, there is only a 6-7% chance (did I get my probability correct?) that the required data will be in the shared_buffer. Did I understand this correctly?If nothing else becomes the bottleneck (eg. periodically writing dirty pages to disk), increasing the shared_buffers to 15GB+ should have a significant impact, for this DB-size and workload, right? (The system has 64 GB RAM)-- Saurabh.
Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the the test if experience.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: