On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:p...@heroku.com] >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> >> [Windows] >> >> #clients on off >> >> 12 29793 38169 >> >> 24 31587 87237 >> >> 48 32588 83335 >> >> 96 34261 67668 >> > >> > This ranges from a 28% to a 97% speed improvement on Windows! Those >> > are not typos! This is a game-changer for use of Postgres on Windows >> > for certain workloads! >> >> While I don't care all that much about performance on windows, it is a little >> sad that it took this long to fix something so simple. Consider this >> exchange, >> as a further example of our lack of concern here: >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/30619.1428157...@sss.pgh.pa.us > > Probably, the useful Windows Performance Toolkit, which is a counterpart of > perf on Linux, was not available before. Maybe we can dig deeper into > performance problems with it now. > > As a similar topic, I wonder whether the following still holds true, after > many improvements on shared buffer lock contention. > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/runtime-config-resource.html > > "The useful range for shared_buffers on Windows systems is generally > from 64MB to 512MB."
I don't use Windows, but I have heard recently that this is still true from someone who was testing with pgbench. He reported a dip in the curve above 512MB. Another database vendor recommends granting SeLockMemoryPrivilege so that it can use large pages on Windows when using several GB of buffer pool. I wonder if that might help Postgres on Windows. This could be useful as a starting point to test that theory: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D075-bgHi_VDt4SCAmt%2Bo_%2B1XaRap2zh7XwfZvT294oHA%40mail.gmail.com -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
