On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at> wrote: > > Tom Lane suggested in > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2004-02/msg00471.php > that it might be better to set shared_buffers "relatively > small" and let the filesystem cache do the buffering, so that's > another way you can go. His advice is usually good.
Note that for transactional databases that are too large to fit the dataset into memory (think a 16Gig machine running a 100G transactional database) this is very true. The shared_buffers seldom get reused and you'll get faster throughput with lower shared_buffers. In testing a 40Gig db on a 32Gig machine, I got the best pgbench numbers with a shared_buffers setting in the hundreds of megs range. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
