Dave Page wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Greg Smith wrote: >> >>> Memory detection works on recent (>=2.5) version of Python for Windows >>> now. >> I just realized that the provided configuration is really not optimal for >> Windows users because of the known limitations that prevent larger >> shared_buffers settings from being effective on that platform. I know there >> are some notes on that subject in the archives that I'll look though, but >> I'd appreciate a suggestion for what a good upper-limit for that setting is >> on Windows. I also wonder whether any of the other parameters have similar >> restrictions on their useful range. > > It's going to be of little use to 99% of Windows users anyway as it's > written in Python. What was wrong with C?
It could be shipped with a bundled python, I guess. Python is a lot more common in these scenarios than any of the other "unixy languages" - much more common than perl for example - on Windows in my experience. It could be because it's easier to bundle or something? > FWIW though, in some pgbench tests on XP Pro, on a 4GB machine, 512MB > seemed to be consistently the most effective size (out of tests on > 32MB, 512MB and 1GB). There wasn't much between 32 and 512 though - my > suspicion is that 128 or 256 would be similarly effective. I didn't > have time to test that though. That's about what I've heard around as well - I don't think I've ever heard of a case where >512 has actually helped. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
