Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Mapping a database completly into Memory

From: Franco Bruno Borghesi <franco(at)akyasociados(dot)com(dot)ar>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Mapping a database completly into Memory
Date: 2003-07-28 17:48:02
Message-ID: 1059414481.1957.1.camel@taz.oficina (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
But I think it's still a good option. 

For example, in servers where there are other applications running (a
web server, for example) that are constantly accesing the disk and
replacing cached postgresql pages in the kernel, having shared buffers
could reduce this efect and assure the precense of our pages in
memory... I gues :)

On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 13:50, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Tom,
> 
> > If we had a portable way
> > of preventing the kernel from caching the same page, it would make more
> > sense to run with large shared_buffers.
> 
> Really?  I thought we wanted to move the other way ... that is, if we could 
> get over the portability issues, eliminate shared_buffers entirely and rely 
> completely on the OS cache.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: scott.marloweDate: 2003-07-28 17:58:11
Subject: Re: Mapping Database completly into memory
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-07-28 17:10:02
Subject: Re: Tuning PostgreSQL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group