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

Re: What gets cached?

From: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,Martin Nickel <martin(at)portant(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What gets cached?
Date: 2005-10-24 15:32:48
Message-ID: 20051024153248.GA24601@samfundet.no (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 11:09:55AM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
> Just to play devils advocate here for as second, but if we have an algorithm
> that is substational better than just plain old LRU, which is what I believe
> the kernel is going to use to cache pages (I'm no kernel hacker), then why
> don't we apply that and have a significantly larger page cache a la Oracle?

There have (AFAIK) been reports of setting huge amounts of shared_buffers
(close to the total amount of RAM) performing much better in 8.1 than in
earlier versions, so this might actually be okay these days.

I haven't heard of anybody reporting increase setting such values, though.

/* Steinar */
-- 
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2005-10-24 15:50:57
Subject: Re: Used Memory
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2005-10-24 15:28:02
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Need help in setting optimal configuration

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