On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 11:53 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Simon,
>
> > There is an optimum for each specific sort.
>
> Well, if the optimum is something other than "as much as we can get", then we
> still have a pretty serious issue with work_mem, no?
Depends upon your view of serious I suppose.
"Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon,
>
>> There is an optimum for each specific sort.
>
> Well, if the optimum is something other than "as much as we can get", then we
> still have a pretty serious issue with work_mem, no?
With the sort algorithm. The problem is that the database c
Simon,
> There is an optimum for each specific sort.
Well, if the optimum is something other than "as much as we can get", then we
still have a pretty serious issue with work_mem, no?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:59 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> sort_mem: My tests with 8.2 and DBT3 seemed to show that, due to
> limitations of our tape sort algorithm, allocating over 2GB for a single
> sort had no benefit. However, Magnus and others have claimed otherwise.
> Has this improved in
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:59 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Folks,
>
> > shared_buffers: according to witnesses, Greg Smith presented at
> > East that based on PostgreSQL's buffer algorithms, buffers above
> > 2GB would not really receive significant use. However, Ji
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:59 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
> shared_buffers: according to witnesses, Greg Smith presented at East that
> based on PostgreSQL's buffer algorithms, buffers above 2GB would not
> really receive significant use. However, Jignesh Shah has tested that on
> work
Greg Smith wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Josh Berkus wrote:
shared_buffers: according to witnesses, Greg Smith presented at East
that
based on PostgreSQL's buffer algorithms, buffers above 2GB would not
really receive significant use. However, Jignesh Shah has tested
that on
workloads with
Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
Subsequent to my presentation of the new annotated.conf at pgCon last week,
there's been some argument about the utility of certain memory settings
above 2GB. I'd like to hash those out on this list so that we can make
some concrete recomendations to users.
shar
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Josh Berkus wrote:
shared_buffers: according to witnesses, Greg Smith presented at East that
based on PostgreSQL's buffer algorithms, buffers above 2GB would not
really receive significant use. However, Jignesh Shah has tested that on
workloads with large numbers of connec
"Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sort_mem: My tests with 8.2 and DBT3 seemed to show that, due to
> limitations of our tape sort algorithm, allocating over 2GB for a single
> sort had no benefit. However, Magnus and others have claimed otherwise.
> Has this improved in 8.3?
Simon
Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
Subsequent to my presentation of the new annotated.conf at pgCon last week,...
Available online yet? At?...
Cheers,
Steve
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/m
Folks,
Subsequent to my presentation of the new annotated.conf at pgCon last week,
there's been some argument about the utility of certain memory settings
above 2GB. I'd like to hash those out on this list so that we can make
some concrete recomendations to users.
shared_buffers: according t
12 matches
Mail list logo