| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Sam R(dot)" <samruohola(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough? |
| Date: | 2018-09-25 20:55:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f9W+nhzj_CV2wP++XH8j-onnv8boBqzqvu1vpe=uH2pQA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 18:36, Sam R. <samruohola(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> Regarding double buffering: I do not know how much double buffering would slow down operations.
> It could also be possible to turn off kernel page cache on our DB server, to avoid double buffering. Although, we may still keep it in use.
I think you've misunderstood double buffering. The double buffering
itself does not slow anything down. If the buffer is in shared buffers
already then it does not need to look any further for it. Double
buffering only becomes an issue when buffers existing 2 times in
memory causes other useful buffers to appear 0 times.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | pinker | 2018-09-26 16:47:27 | Re: Why the sql is not executed in parallel mode |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Ryabtsev | 2018-09-25 20:28:22 | Re: Why could different data in a table be processed with different performance? |