Re: effective_cache_size is a real?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size is a real?
Date: 2006-07-25 21:09:58
Message-ID: 200607252309.58781.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Is it intentional that effective_cache_size is a real (as opposed
> > to integer)?
>
> Yes --- the planner generally does all that stuff in float arithmetic
> to avoid worrying about overflow.

Point taken, but I'm inclined to convert it to an integer anyway,
because that will make the units support much easier. The variable is
only used in exactly one place anyway, so making sure the calculation
works right should be easy.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-07-25 21:14:13 Change in Pervasive's PostgreSQL strategy
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-07-25 20:46:29 Re: On-disk bitmap index patch