From: | Guillaume Lémery <glemery(at)comclick(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Steve Wolfe <steve(at)iboats(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Load a database into memory |
Date: | 2001-01-25 17:51:34 |
Message-ID: | 3A7067A6.7030009@comclick.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> If you have enough RAM, the database will already be in memory, in a
> manner of speaking - your kernel will have all of the files held in disk
> cache.
Ok, but if so, why 10 simultaneous same queries on a well-indexed table with only 500 000 records take a so long time ? :-/
>
>> What else should I know about memory with PostGreSQL ?
>
>
> You can increase the shared memory, and you can increase the amount of
> memory used for sorts/joins, but I haven't run across much more than that.
> Postgres is just a very memory-efficient piece of work. I laugh when I hear
> of people using MS's database, and adding gigs and gigs of RAM for even
> modest databases to perform well. Our server has a half of a gig, and I
> just can't get Postgres to use it all. I guess I better come up with a few
> more large tables to join to. : )
My server has 1G RAM and yes, I still have 800MB free when PG is running...
But I tried to avoid join or sorts in my queries, so I don't think I
need to tune the amount of memory used for sorts/joins...
Guillaume.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dan Lyke | 2001-01-25 17:53:14 | Re: Connection pooling |
Previous Message | Trurl McByte | 2001-01-25 17:50:18 | Unique ID of connection |