| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Thomas F(dot)O'Connell <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PgSQL - Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] [PATCHES] ARC Memory Usage analysis |
| Date: | 2004-10-27 00:39:59 |
| Message-ID: | 200410261739.59814.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-performance |
Thomas,
> As a result, I was intending to inflate the value of
> effective_cache_size to closer to the amount of unused RAM on some of
> the machines I admin (once I've verified that they all have a unified
> buffer cache). Is that correct?
Currently, yes. Right now, e_c_s is used just to inform the planner and make
index vs. table scan and join order decisions.
The problem which Simon is bringing up is part of a discussion about doing
*more* with the information supplied by e_c_s. He points out that it's not
really related to the *real* probability of any particular table being
cached. At least, if I'm reading him right.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-10-27 00:52:43 | Re: New compile warnings in CVS |
| Previous Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2004-10-27 00:09:22 | Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] ARC Memory Usage analysis |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-10-27 00:43:13 | Re: pg_ctl -D canonicalization |
| Previous Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2004-10-27 00:09:22 | Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] ARC Memory Usage analysis |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-10-27 00:42:53 | Re: can't handle large number of INSERT/UPDATEs |
| Previous Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2004-10-27 00:09:22 | Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] ARC Memory Usage analysis |