| From: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SAN/NAS options |
| Date: | 2005-12-17 00:48:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20051217004800.GF2883@mathom.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 06:25:25PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>True, but now you've got 4x the amount of data in your cache that you
>probably don't need.
Or you might be 4x more likely to have data cached that's needed later.
If you're hitting disk either way, that's probably more likely than the
extra IO pushing something critical out--if *all* the important stuff
were cached you wouldn't be doing the seeks in the first place. This
will obviously be heavily dependent on the amount of ram you've got and
your workload, so (as always) you'll have to benchmark it to get past
the hand-waving stage.
Mike Stone
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyle Cordes | 2005-12-17 01:42:30 | Re: Overriding the optimizer |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-12-17 00:25:25 | Re: SAN/NAS options |