From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
Cc: | Martin Dillard <martin(at)edusoftinc(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Linux max on shared buffers? |
Date: | 2002-07-11 03:56:38 |
Message-ID: | 200207110356.g6B3ucI03381@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Woh, 10MB is clearly too low. Remember, there is copying overhead of
> > moving data from the kernel to the PostgreSQL shared buffers.
>
> Yes, but the cost of copying between a postgres buffer and an OS buffer
> is much, much less than the cost of copying between an OS buffer and disk.
>
> However, it all depends on your working set, doesn't it? So I can't make
> a strong argument either way. What do you think is better? 20 MB? 100
> MB? Do you allocate based on the number of connections, or a proportion
> of the machine's memory, or something else? I was estimating based on
> the number of connections.
>
If it is a dedicated machine, I would think some percentage of total RAM
would be good, perhaps 25%. If it isn't dedicated, the working set
becomes a major issue, yes.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-07-11 03:57:36 | Re: abuse of inheritance? |
Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-07-11 03:54:50 | Re: Linux max on shared buffers? |