On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
> 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
> > sad that it took this long to fix something so simple. Consider this
> > 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.
> "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Yes, that may very much be out of date as well.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.