On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > From: Tsunakawa, Takayuki/綱川 貴之 >> Thank you, I'll try the read-write test with these settings on the weekend, >> when my PC is available. I understood that your intention is to avoid being >> affected by checkpointing and WAL segment creation. > > The result looks nice as follows. I took the mean value of three runs. > > shared_buffers tps > 256MB 990 > 512MB 813 > 1GB 1189 > 2GB 2258 > 4GB 5003 > 8GB 5062 > > "512MB is the largest effective size" seems to be a superstition, although I > don't know the reason for the drop at 512MB. >
It is difficult to say why the performance drops at 512MB, it could be run-to-run variation. How long have you run each test? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: 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
