| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: DB cache size strategies |
| Date: | 2004-02-11 05:26:06 |
| Message-ID: | 15335.1076477166@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Ed L." <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> writes:
> On Tuesday February 10 2004 1:42, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> I think giving postgresql half your memory is couterproductive.
> I get the sense it really depends on the nature of the apps running on the
> box.
Giving PG half the RAM is counterproductive no matter what --- that
pretty much guarantees that every page that's in RAM will be in RAM
twice, once in PG buffers and once in kernel buffers. The two
reasonable schools of thought are (1) to make PG buffers relatively
small and let the kernel do the bulk of the buffering, or (2) to give
PG most of the RAM and expect it to do the bulk of the buffering.
Past experience has been that theory (1) generally wins. Jan's recent
work on ARC buffering may make things more interesting, though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2004-02-11 05:30:53 | Re: Temporary views |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-11 05:10:29 | Re: Temporary views |