On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:p...@heroku.com] > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > >> [Windows] > > >> #clients on off > > >> 12 29793 38169 > > >> 24 31587 87237 > > >> 48 32588 83335 > > >> 96 34261 67668 > > > > > > This ranges from a 28% to a 97% speed improvement on Windows! Those > > > are not typos! This is a game-changer for use of Postgres on Windows > > > for certain workloads! > > > > While I don't care all that much about performance on windows, it is a > little > > sad that it took this long to fix something so simple. Consider this > exchange, > > as a further example of our lack of concern here: > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/30619.1428157...@sss.pgh.pa.us > > Probably, the useful Windows Performance Toolkit, which is a counterpart > of perf on Linux, was not available before. Maybe we can dig deeper into > performance problems with it now. > > As a similar topic, I wonder whether the following still holds true, after > many improvements on shared buffer lock contention. > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/runtime-config-resource.html > > "The useful range for shared_buffers on Windows systems is > generally from 64MB to 512MB." > > Yes, that may very much be out of date as well. A good set of benchmarks around that would definitely be welcome. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
