Re: random_page_cost vs seq_page_cost

Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>

From: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>

To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2012-02-12T00:53:25Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> I was initially concerned that tuning advice in this part of the docs
> would look out of place, but now see the 25% shared_buffers
> recommentation, and it looks fine, so we are OK.  (Should we caution
> against more than 8GB of shared buffers?  I don't see that in the docs.)

Has it ever been well-characterized what the problem is with >8GB?
I've used shared buffers above that size for testing purposes and
could never provoke a problem with it.

Cheers,

Jeff