From: | "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DB cache size strategies |
Date: | 2004-02-11 06:01:21 |
Message-ID: | 200402102301.22176.pgsql@bluepolka.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tuesday February 10 2004 10:26, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Giving PG half the RAM is counterproductive no matter what --- that
> pretty much guarantees that every page that's in RAM will be in RAM
> twice, once in PG buffers and once in kernel buffers. The two
> reasonable schools of thought are (1) to make PG buffers relatively
> small and let the kernel do the bulk of the buffering, or (2) to give
> PG most of the RAM and expect it to do the bulk of the buffering.
>
> Past experience has been that theory (1) generally wins. Jan's recent
> work on ARC buffering may make things more interesting, though.
So, pursuing theory (1) in 'the time before ARC', assuming you have a
dedicated box with little or no non-db competition for resources, why give
PG anymore than is absolutely required (max_connections*2 or 16)? Why not
just let the kernel reign as completely as possible? Is that what you mean
by "relatively small"?
TIA.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-11 06:17:04 | Re: DB cache size strategies |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-02-11 05:46:01 | Re: DB cache size strategies |