Greg Smith wrote: >Was working on some documentation today and I realized that I've taken for >granted the lore about not using large values for shared_buffers in >Windows without ever understanding why. Can someone explain what the >underlying mechanism that causes that limitation is? From poking the >archives I got the impression it was some page mapping issue but details >are elusive.
All I can offer is Magnus' explanation: "All evidence I've seen points to that you should have shared_buffers as *small* as possible on win32, because memory access there is slow. And leave more of the caching up to the OS." <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-10/msg01115.php> Heikki said something similar here: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2007-10/msg00242.php> Rainer -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers