From: | Derrick Rice <derrick(dot)rice(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | preetika tyagi <preetikatyagi(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Shared Buffer Size |
Date: | 2011-05-27 21:11:56 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTimXs8X4ALvF4Wo2+yJGux2iO=aSZA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Check out the "Inside the PostgreSQL Buffer Cache" link here:
http://projects.2ndquadrant.com/talks
Thanks to Greg Smith (active here).
Derrick
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:36 PM, preetika tyagi <preetikatyagi(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am little confused about the internal working of PostgreSQL. There is a
> parameter shared_buffer in postgres.conf and I am assuming that it is used
> for buffer management in PostgreSQL. If there is a need to bring in a new
> page in the buffer and size exceeds the shared_buffer limit, a victim dirty
> page will be written back to the disk.
>
> However, I have read on many links that PostgreSQL depends on the OS for
> caching. (http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html#shbuf)
>
> So my question is, the actual limit of the shared buffer will be defined by
> OS or the shared_buffer parameter in the postgres.conf to figure whether a
> victim dirty page needs to be selected for disk write or not?
>
> Thanks!
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Little, Douglas | 2011-05-27 21:14:08 | String library |
Previous Message | David Johnston | 2011-05-27 20:48:42 | Re: SELECT COUNT(*) execution time on large tables (v9.0.4-1) |