Re: Mapping a database completly into Memory

>>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

TL> Franco Bruno Borghesi <franco(at)akyasociados(dot)com(dot)ar> writes:
>> wouldn't also increasing shared_buffers to 64 or 128 MB be a good
>> performance improvement? This way, pages belonging to heavily used
>> indexes would be already cached by the database itself.

TL> Not necessarily. The trouble with large shared_buffers settings is you
TL> end up with lots of pages being doubly cached (both in PG's buffers and

I think if you do a lot of inserting/updating to your table, then more
SHM is better (and very high fsm settings), since you defer pushing
out the dirty pages to the disk. For read-mostly, I agree that
letting the OS do the caching is a better way.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: khera(at)kciLink(dot)com Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497
AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/