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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 |