On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:04 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:21 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> Should we log a warning at startup when effective_cache_size is less
> >> than shared_buffers?
> > I would say no. Although I could see an argument for the default
> > effective_cache_size always being the same size as shared_buffers.
> That's certainly not what we've meant historically by ECS. Generally
> it's been the size of shared_buffers *and* the FS cache. If it were
> just the size of shared_buffers, then we wouldn't need a 2nd setting,
> would we?
We can't determine the size of the FS cache. We can determine the size
of the shared_buffers. The idea here is to eliminate one of those by
default PostgreSQL is slow issues. Since we are already using X amount
of shared_buffers we know we have at least X amount of cache.
Joshua D. Drake
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-02-26 03:24:21|
|Subject: Re: Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-BatchHash Join for Skewed Data Sets|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2009-02-26 01:04:07|
|Subject: Re: effective_cache_size less than shared_buffers|