| From: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Martin Nickel <martin(at)portant(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: What gets cached? |
| Date: | 2005-10-24 15:32:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20051024153248.GA24601@samfundet.no |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 11:09:55AM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
> Just to play devils advocate here for as second, but if we have an algorithm
> that is substational better than just plain old LRU, which is what I believe
> the kernel is going to use to cache pages (I'm no kernel hacker), then why
> don't we apply that and have a significantly larger page cache a la Oracle?
There have (AFAIK) been reports of setting huge amounts of shared_buffers
(close to the total amount of RAM) performing much better in 8.1 than in
earlier versions, so this might actually be okay these days.
I haven't heard of anybody reporting increase setting such values, though.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2005-10-24 15:50:57 | Re: Used Memory |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-10-24 15:28:02 | Re: [PERFORM] Need help in setting optimal configuration |