From: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Docs about buffers and sortmem setting |
Date: | 2002-11-14 18:01:19 |
Message-ID: | 20021114130119.G9625@mail.libertyrms.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:20:49PM -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
> Well, part of the reason is that a lot of the data in shared_buffers
> has to be effectively duplicated in the kernel's I/O caches, because
> it's frequently accessed. So while I'd think the cost of fetching a
> page from the buffer pool is lower than from the OS' cache, increasing
> the size of the Postgres buffer pool effectively decreases the total
> amount of RAM available for caching.
Well, yes, but on a machine with 16 G and a data set < 16 G, that's
not the issue. A 1G shared buffer is too big anyway, according to
our experience: it's fast at the beginning, but performance degrades.
I don't know why.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Wolfe | 2002-11-14 18:46:15 | Re: Upgrade to dual processor machine? |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-11-14 17:20:49 | Re: Docs about buffers and sortmem setting |