On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Jeff Janes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Kevin Grittner >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Maybe the thing to focus on first is the oft-discussed "benchmark >>> farm" (similar to the "build farm"), with a good mix of loads, so >>> that the impact of changes can be better tracked for multiple >>> workloads on a variety of platforms and configurations. Without >>> something like that it is very hard to justify the added complexity >>> of an idea like this in terms of the performance benefit gained. >> >> A related area that could use some looking at is why performance tops >> out at shared_buffers ~8GB and starts to fall thereafter. > > Under what circumstances does this happen? Can a simple pgbench -S > with a large scaling factor elicit this behavior?
To be honest, I'm mostly just reporting what I've heard Greg Smith say on this topic. I don't have any machine with that kind of RAM. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
