From: | "Steve Wolfe" <steve(at)iboats(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance Tuning Document? |
Date: | 2002-03-29 17:48:40 |
Message-ID: | 003d01c1d749$f7f1fbe0$d281f6cc@iboats.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> if u imply that you'd better leave huge amounts of memory to the OS
buffer
> cache rather than give them to the DB buffer cache then I strongly
disagree.
Good, because that wasn't exactly what I was implying. I was implying
that increasing either disk cache or shared buffers to ridiculous limits
*at the expense of the other* can potentiall be wasteful and even
counter-productive.
> A good on-topic reading is "Avoid Buffered I/O" by Steve Adams
available at
> http://www.ixora.com.au/tips/avoid_buffered_io.htm
Thanks, if I ever switch from PG to Oracle, I'll keep that in mind.
Now, for a little bit of REAL WORLD experience.
Once you've got your sort memory and shared buffers to certain levels,
increasing them isn't going to help you. In my case, I increased them
until I stopped seeing performance increases, then quadrupled them anyway.
Increasing them further is *not* going to help me.
However, keeping the database in memory cache *does* help me. Even
under very significant load (4 processors going full-tilt!), the disk
lights only blink *occasionally*, and that's a good thing. Disk
bottlenecks really suck.
> also, I don't want to "always keep the *entire* database in disk
cache" - I
> want to keep cached only the frequently accessed parts of the data
Why? Do I/O bottlenecks excite you? If you have the RAM, not using it
is wasteful. Disks are a place to store data for when the power goes out,
not where you want to do your database work from.
steve
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Arguile | 2002-03-29 20:36:30 | Re: plperlu |
Previous Message | Oxeye | 2002-03-29 16:35:25 | Plpgsql Question |