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

Re: shared_buffers advice

From: Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Konrad Garus <konrad(dot)garus(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: shared_buffers advice
Date: 2010-05-27 18:22:10
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-performance
2010/5/27 Konrad Garus <konrad(dot)garus(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2010/5/27 Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> well, that is the projection of file in memory. only projection, but
>> the memory is still acquire. It is ok to rework this part and project
>> something like 128MB and loop. (in fact the code is needed for 9.0
>> because segment can be > 1GB, I didn't check what is the optimum
>> projection size yet)
>> So both yes at your questions :)
> So when I map 12 GB, this process will consume 1 GB and the time
> needed to browse through the whole 12 GB buffer?

Exactly. And the time to browse depend on the number of blocks already
in core memory.
I am interested by tests results and benchmarks if you are going to do some :)

> --
> Konrad Garus

Cédric Villemain               2ndQuadrant     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Cédric VillemainDate: 2010-05-27 18:28:36
Subject: Re: Random Page Cost and Planner
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-05-27 16:41:28
Subject: Re: Query causing explosion of temp space with join involving partitioning

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group