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

Re: Caching (was Re: choosing the right platform)

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: "Matthew Nuzum" <cobalt(at)bearfruit(dot)org>,"'Pgsql-Performance'" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Caching (was Re: choosing the right platform)
Date: 2003-04-10 03:45:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance

> ** Postgres is multi-process, not multi-threaded (?)


> ** It's better to not use huge amount of sort-mem but instead let the OS do
> the caching (?)

That's "don't use a huge amount of *shared_buffers*".  Sort_mem is a different 
setting.  However, I have never seen a database use more than 32mb sort mem 
in a single process, so I don't think the 2GB limit will hurt you much ...

> ** My needs are really not going to be as big as I think they are if I
> manage the application/environment correctly (?)

Your needs *per process*.   Also, PostgreSQL is not as much of a consumer of 
RAM as it is a consumer of disk I/O.

> * FreeBSD is going to provide a better file system than Linux (because
> Linux only supports large files on journaling filesystems which impose
> extra over head) (this gleaned from this conversation and previous threads
> in archives) 

No, the jury is still out on this one.   ReiserFS is optimized for small 
files, and I've done well with it although some posters report stability 
problems, though all second-hand.   We hope to test this sometime in the 
upcoming months.

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ron JohnsonDate: 2003-04-10 08:17:59
Subject: Re: Caching (was Re: choosing the right platform)
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-04-10 03:39:00
Subject: Re: Help analyzing 7.2.4 EXPLAIN

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group