On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Greg Smith wrote: > >> Memory detection works on recent (>=2.5) version of Python for Windows >> now. > > I just realized that the provided configuration is really not optimal for > Windows users because of the known limitations that prevent larger > shared_buffers settings from being effective on that platform. I know there > are some notes on that subject in the archives that I'll look though, but > I'd appreciate a suggestion for what a good upper-limit for that setting is > on Windows. I also wonder whether any of the other parameters have similar > restrictions on their useful range.
It's going to be of little use to 99% of Windows users anyway as it's written in Python. What was wrong with C? FWIW though, in some pgbench tests on XP Pro, on a 4GB machine, 512MB seemed to be consistently the most effective size (out of tests on 32MB, 512MB and 1GB). There wasn't much between 32 and 512 though - my suspicion is that 128 or 256 would be similarly effective. I didn't have time to test that though. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
