Thanks a lot for the port to CVS.
I agree that we need more benckmark efforts to clarify real outcome of
"more than 2GB" memory. Please let me spend some more for this. I
will post benchmark results. As long as I see from pgbench, it looks
more memory gets more throuput. Maybe big SQL again
Koichi Suzuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here're a couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support. There're just
> two extension to 64bit, size of shared memory and transaction ID.
I've applied the part of this that seemed reasonably noncontroversial,
namely the fixes to do shared memory size
Mark,
I've not seen CVS in detail. I begain this work against 8.0.1 and
continued thru 8.0.2 to 8.0.3. It was not a great work. The patch is
rather straightforward and I appreciate if you try to port against CVS.
Mark Wong wrote:
Hi,
I grabbed the patches to try, but I was wondering if
Hi,
I grabbed the patches to try, but I was wondering if it would be more
interesting to try them against CVS rather than 8.0.3 (and if it would
be easy to port :)?
Mark
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> I asked originally for some experimental evidence showing any value
> in having more than 2Gb of shared buffers. In the absence of any
> convincing demonstration, I'm not very inclined to worry about whether
> we can handle wider-than-int shared memory size.
Hi,
Attached is a result of pgbenc
Hi,
Attached is a result of pgbench with 64bit patch PostgreSQL (base is
8.0.1). Benchmark machine is dual opteron (1.4GHz, 1MB cache each) with
8GB of memory and 120GB of IDE hard disk.
Koichi Suzuki wrote:
> I have some experimeltal data about this extension. I will gather it
> and post hope
Hans-J|rgen Schvnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 64-bit XIDs seem to be an overkill - the only practical impact I can see
> is an even larger tuple header (this can be an issue on large boxes too
> - at least compared to Oracle).
I agreed, too. The changes of XIDs cannot be ignored because
I have some experimeltal data about this extension. I will gather it
and post hopefully this weekend.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Koichi Suzuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Here're a couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support. There're just
>>two extension to 64bit, size of shared memory and tran
Tom Lane wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is some practical evidence. Recently the number of large boxes in
the field is almost growing exponentially. Today I have heard somebody
say "this box has 'just 4 gig of ram' ".
On large installations we
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is some practical evidence. Recently the number of large boxes in
> the field is almost growing exponentially. Today I have heard somebody
> say "this box has 'just 4 gig of ram' ".
> On large installations we have alrea
Tom Lane wrote:
Koichi Suzuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Here're a couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support. There're just
two extension to 64bit, size of shared memory and transaction ID.
I asked originally for some experimental evidence showing any value
in having more than 2Gb of
Koichi Suzuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here're a couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support. There're just
> two extension to 64bit, size of shared memory and transaction ID.
I asked originally for some experimental evidence showing any value
in having more than 2Gb of shared buffers. I
12 matches
Mail list logo