Hi Justin,
You mean, So should I request for to increase the System Ram from 32 Gb to 64
Gb and keep the same parameter setting.Is it ?
Br,
Haseeb Ahmad
>
> On 10-Jun-2021, at 9:28 AM, Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 05:45:45AM +0500, Haseeb Khan wrote:
>> We have installed PostgreSQL V13 on window’s server 2016, where we kept the
>> Ram of the Server is 32 GB and disk size is 270 GB.Later we faced some
>> performance issues regarding the database, after deep dive into it we came
>> up and increased the Shared buffer size to 16 Gb. After the changed I am not
>> sure we are facing that Page file Size reached to critical threshold.
>> Currently the Page File size is 9504MB.
>
> Hi,
>
> How large is your DB ? (Or the "active set" of the DB, if parts of it are
> accessed infrequently).
>
> What was the original performance issue that led you to increase
> shared_buffers ?
>
> You've set shared_buffers to half of your RAM, which may be a "worst case"
> setting, since everything that's read into shared_buffers must first be read
> into the OS cache. So it may be that many blocks are cached twice, rather
> than
> relying on a smaller shared_buffers only for the "hottest" blocks, and the
> larger OS cache for everything else.
>
> There are exceptions to the guideline - for example, if your DB is 23 GB in
> size, it might make sense to have the entire thing in 24GB OF shared_buffers.
> But most DB don't need to fit in shared_buffers, and you shouldn't make that a
> goal, unless you can measure a performance benefit.
>
> --
> Justin
