On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >> > It would also be nice to find out why we can't usefully scale shared >> > buffers >> > higher like we can on *nix. >> >> Has anyone ever looked into whether asking for SEC_LARGE_PAGES would >> help with that? > > The huge_pages feature is fairly new, and as I recall the intention is > that other operating systems will be supported as we get patches for it. > Feel free to submit something.
I don't have a Windows development stack or any plans to get one but I did make some notes and write some blind code for this a while back when I was studying the shmem code. Here it is, in the hope that it might be a useful starting point for someone else... I suppose the first step is to find a benchmark that improves as you increase shared_buffers on Windows and Linux but plateaus at a much lower setting on Windows, and then get a patch like this working and see if huge_pages = on changes anything... -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
windows-large-pages-probably-doesnt-even-compile.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
