Hello, > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > 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-re > source.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 Yes, that may very much be out of date as well.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.
I'd like to propose the above-mentioned comment from the manual. The patch is attached. I ran read-only and read-write modes of pgbench, and could not see any apparent decrease in performance when I increased shared_buffers. The scaling factor is 200, where the database size is roughly 3GB. I ran the benchmark on my Windows 10 PC with 6 CPU cores and 16GB of RAM. The database and WAL is stored on the same HDD. <<Test batch file>> @echo off for %%s in (256MB 512MB 1GB 2GB 4GB) do ( pg_ctl -w -o "-c shared_buffers=%%s" start pgbench -c18 -j6 -T60 -S bench >> g:\b.txt 2>&1 pg_ctl -t 3600 stop ) <<Select-only (with -S)>> shared_buffers tps 256MB 63056 512MB 63918 1GB 65520 2GB 66840 4GB 68270 <<Read-write (without -S)>> shared_buffers tps 256MB 1138 512MB 1187 1GB 1571 2GB 1650 4GB 1598 Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers