Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Roman Fail <rfail(at)posportal(dot)com>, sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow
Date: 2003-01-17 18:01:09
Message-ID: 13372.1042826469@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Just as a data point, I believe other database systems recommend very
> large shared memory areas if a lot of data is being accessed. I seem to
> remember Informix doing that.

Yeah, but isn't that theory a hangover from pre-Unix operating systems?
In all modern Unixen, you can expect the kernel to make use of any spare
RAM for disk buffer cache --- and that behavior makes it pointless for
Postgres to try to do large amounts of its own buffering.

Having a page in our own buffer instead of kernel buffer saves a context
swap to access the page, but it doesn't save I/O, so the benefit is a
lot less than you might think. I think there's seriously diminishing
returns in pushing shared_buffers beyond a few thousand, and once you
get to the point where it distorts the kernel's ability to manage
memory for processes, you're really shooting yourself in the foot.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff 2003-01-17 18:39:41 Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2003-01-17 17:59:39 Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow