On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 11:53 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Simon,
There is an optimum for each specific sort.
Well, if the optimum is something other than as much as we can get, then we
still have a pretty serious issue with work_mem, no?
Depends upon your view of serious I suppose. I would
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:59 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
sort_mem: My tests with 8.2 and DBT3 seemed to show that, due to
limitations of our tape sort algorithm, allocating over 2GB for a single
sort had no benefit. However, Magnus and others have claimed otherwise.
Has this improved in
Simon,
There is an optimum for each specific sort.
Well, if the optimum is something other than as much as we can get, then we
still have a pretty serious issue with work_mem, no?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon,
There is an optimum for each specific sort.
Well, if the optimum is something other than as much as we can get, then we
still have a pretty serious issue with work_mem, no?
With the sort algorithm. The problem is that the database can't predict
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:59 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
shared_buffers: according to witnesses, Greg Smith presented at East that
based on PostgreSQL's buffer algorithms, buffers above 2GB would not
really receive significant use. However, Jignesh Shah has tested that on
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:59 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
shared_buffers: according to witnesses, Greg Smith presented at
East that based on PostgreSQL's buffer algorithms, buffers above
2GB would not really receive significant use. However, Jignesh
Folks,
Subsequent to my presentation of the new annotated.conf at pgCon last week,
there's been some argument about the utility of certain memory settings
above 2GB. I'd like to hash those out on this list so that we can make
some concrete recomendations to users.
shared_buffers: according
Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
Subsequent to my presentation of the new annotated.conf at pgCon last week,...
Available online yet? At?...
Cheers,
Steve
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sort_mem: My tests with 8.2 and DBT3 seemed to show that, due to
limitations of our tape sort algorithm, allocating over 2GB for a single
sort had no benefit. However, Magnus and others have claimed otherwise.
Has this improved in 8.3?
Simon
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Josh Berkus wrote:
shared_buffers: according to witnesses, Greg Smith presented at East that
based on PostgreSQL's buffer algorithms, buffers above 2GB would not
really receive significant use. However, Jignesh Shah has tested that on
workloads with large numbers of
Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
Subsequent to my presentation of the new annotated.conf at pgCon last week,
there's been some argument about the utility of certain memory settings
above 2GB. I'd like to hash those out on this list so that we can make
some concrete recomendations to users.
Greg Smith wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Josh Berkus wrote:
shared_buffers: according to witnesses, Greg Smith presented at East
that
based on PostgreSQL's buffer algorithms, buffers above 2GB would not
really receive significant use. However, Jignesh Shah has tested
that on
workloads
12 matches
Mail list logo
