On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 14:48 -0800, Chris Travers wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > >Your point was about cache efficiency as an argument for not increasing > >shared_buffers. Politely, I don't accept that argument. Clearly, there > >are some other considerations (for which I agree completely) but those > >don't prevent you increasing shared_buffers, they just place limits on > >your overall memory budget which could effect shared_buffers of course. > > > I can see some circumstances where it might make some sense to have high > shared buffer arrangements. > > However, I think that Tom and others are speaking to typical cases, and > I think you seem to be speaking to the case where you have a database > where you have many reads and only a few writes, and where a few tables > are far more often used that the rest. So it strikes me as an argument > against making such the general recommendation. Of course, if your > database benefits from turning off bgwriter and increasing shared > buffers, you might find that useful. Just be aware that it is likely to > be applicable only to a small subset of the PostgreSQL deployments. This all depends upon what you see as typical. I see more than one "typical" deployment - I see three, maybe more: - OLTP/ Current State data management - Data Warehouse - Log Archiver Each are fairly different in many respects, so I see few "general recommendations" that really do apply to everybody. So thats why I didn't attempt to make a general recommendation myself, just pointing out that you can if you want and there's nothing physically stopping you from putting shared_buffers high (in 8.1). Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
