| From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium |
| Date: | 2004-02-14 05:05:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20040214050526.GB3594@phlogiston.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:46:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Quite honestly, I suspect we may be wasting our time hacking the
> Postgres buffer replacement algorithm at all. There are a bunch of
> reasons why the PG shared buffer arena should never be more than a
> small fraction of physical RAM, and under those conditions the cache
> replacement algorithm that will matter is the kernel's, not ours.
Well, unless the Postgres cache is more efficient than the OS's, no?.
You could then use the nocache filesystem option, and just let
Postgres handle the whole thing. Of course, that's a pretty big
unless, and not one that I'm volunteering to make go away!
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2004-02-14 05:30:27 | Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2004-02-14 05:01:31 | Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium |