Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] ARC Memory Usage analysis

From: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] ARC Memory Usage analysis
Date: 2004-11-01 01:11:45
Message-ID: cm42gu$14nu$1@news.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-performance

Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:
>
> As a result, I was intending to inflate the value of
> effective_cache_size to closer to the amount of unused RAM on some of
> the machines I admin (once I've verified that they all have a unified
> buffer cache). Is that correct?
>

Effective cache size is IMHO a "bogus" parameter on postgresql.conf,
this because:

1) That parameter is not intended to instruct postgres to use that ram but
is only an hint to the engine on what the "DBA" *believe* the OS cache
memory for postgres
2) This parameter change only the cost evaluation of plans ( and not soo
much )

so don't hope to double this parameter and push postgres to use more RAM.

Regards
Gaetano Mendola

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-11-01 01:16:38 Win32 lost signals open item
Previous Message David Fetter 2004-11-01 00:58:15 Re: Suggestion: additional system views

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-11-01 03:59:34 Re: Where is the link to cygwin?
Previous Message a_ogawa 2004-10-31 14:29:37 Re: Cache last known per-tuple offsets to speed long tuple

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 2004-11-01 12:59:49 Re: Thanks Chariot Solutions
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2004-11-01 00:01:15 Re: Speeding up Gist Index creations