On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Kevin Grittner >> <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
