> 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 Yes, that may very much be out of date as well.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 

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

Takayuki Tsunakawa

Attachment: win_shrdbuf_perf.patch
Description: win_shrdbuf_perf.patch

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to