| 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 18:25:06 |
| Message-ID: | 200402111125.06896.pgsql@bluepolka.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wednesday February 11 2004 9:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Ed L." <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> writes:
> > Then what scenarios, if any, merit theory (2) over theory (1)?
>
> I'd only consider a large-cache setting on a machine that's dedicated to
> running the database (where "dedicated" means "that's the only thing you
> care about performance of", as in your first scenario). Even then I'd
> test it against the other way. As Andrew Sullivan notes nearby, our
> experience has been that the PostgreSQL buffer manager isn't all that
> efficient about managing large caches. It's possible that Jan's current
> work will change that situation in 7.5, but I'd still test first ...
Great. Thx to all for feedback, very informative, interesting, and helpful
in practice.
Ed
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | th240265 | 2004-02-11 19:19:53 | PostgreSQL in a shared-disk enviroment |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-02-11 18:19:51 | Re: pl/pythonu |