Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On 11/7/16 12:43 AM, amul sul wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > wrote: >> >> The third paragraph may be redundant, I'm a bit inclined to leave it for >> kindness and completeness. The attached revised patch just correct the >>

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > > On 11/17/16 12:30 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > >> No, I'm not recommending a higher value, but just

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 11/17/16 12:30 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: >> No, I'm not recommending a higher value, but just removing the doubtful >> sentences of 512MB upper limit. The advantage is that eliminating this >>

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila >> > shared_buffers tps >> > 256MB 990 >> > 512MB 813 >> > 1GB 1189 >> > 2GB 2258 >>

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila > > shared_buffers tps > > 256MB 990 > > 512MB 813 > > 1GB 1189 > > 2GB 2258 > > 4GB 5003 > > 8GB 5062 > > > > "512MB is the largest effective size" seems to be a superstition,

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Tsunakawa, Takayuki/綱川 貴之 >> Thank you, I'll try the read-write test with these settings on the weekend, >> when my PC is available. I understood that your intention is to avoid being >> affected

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

From: Tsunakawa, Takayuki/綱川 貴之 > Thank you, I'll try the read-write test with these settings on the weekend, > when my PC is available. I understood that your intention is to avoid being > affected by checkpointing and WAL segment creation. The result looks nice as follows. I took the mean

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On 11/17/16 12:30 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > No, I'm not recommending a higher value, but just removing the doubtful > sentences of 512MB upper limit. The advantage is that eliminating this > sentence will make a chance for users to try best setting. I think this is a good point. The

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila > > I think the reason why increasing shared_buffers didn't give better > performance for read-only tests than you expect is that the relation files > are cached in the filesystem cache.

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Right, but for other platforms, the recommendation seems to be 25% of > RAM, can we safely say that for Windows as well? As per test results > in this thread, it seems the read-write performance degrades when >

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila >> Okay, not a problem. However, I am not sure the results in this thread >> are

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila > Okay, not a problem. However, I am not sure the results in this thread > are sufficient proof as for read-only tests, there is no noticeable win > by increasing shared buffers and

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Amit Kapila

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Magnus Hagander >> wrote: >> >> > Based on this optimization we might want

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Isn't it somewhat strange that writes are

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >> > Based on this optimization we might want to keep the text that says > >> > large > >> > shared buffers on Windows aren't as

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > Based on this optimization we might want to keep the text that says >> > large >> > shared buffers on Windows aren't as effective perhaps, Sounds sensible or may add a line to say why it isn't as effective as on

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander > Okay and I think partially it might be because we don't have > >

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander Okay and I think partially it might be because we don't have > writeback > optimization (done in 9.6) for Windows. However, still the broader > question stands

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki >> wrote: >> > I ran read-only and read-write modes of

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > wrote: > > Hello, > > > >> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > 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 >>

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > > The third paragraph may be redundant, I'm a bit inclined to leave it for > kindness and completeness. The attached revised patch just correct the > existing typo (large -> larger). > I am not agree

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

From: amul sul [mailto:sula...@gmail.com] > IMHO, I think we could remove third paragraph completely and generalised > starting of second paragraph, somewhat looks likes as > follow: > > > -If you have a dedicated database server with 1GB or more of RAM, > a > -reasonable

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

Change "even large" to "even larger" because it is used in a comparison. > ... a reasonable starting value for shared_buffers is 25% > of the memory in your system. There are some workloads where even large > settings > for shared_buffers are effective, ... ... are some workloads where even

Re: [HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

Hi Takayuki-san, IMHO, I think we could remove third paragraph completely and generalised starting of second paragraph, somewhat looks likes as follow: -If you have a dedicated database server with 1GB or more of RAM, a -reasonable starting value for shared_buffers is

[HACKERS] Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows

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 > wrote: > As a similar topic, I wonder whether the following still holds