| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |