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

Re: Mapping a database completly into Memory

From: Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Mapping a database completly into Memory
Date: 2003-07-29 15:22:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
>>>>> "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

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ron JohnsonDate: 2003-07-29 15:46:15
Subject: Re: Tuning PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Vivek KheraDate: 2003-07-29 15:14:54
Subject: Re: Tuning PostgreSQL

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