Re: Mapping a database completly into Memory

You make an interesting distinction that read/write needs more shared
memory. I think this is because if you want to reused a read-only
shared buffer, you can just throw away the contents, while a dirty
buffer requires you to write it into the kernel before you can use it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vivek Khera wrote:
> >>>>> "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/
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073