| From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, GB Clark <postgres(at)vsservices(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, <glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Linux max on shared buffers? |
| Date: | 2002-07-24 02:46:41 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.44.0207241138540.21696-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Is it significant that you these shared libraries remain mapped for the
> duration of the process, while blocks are moved in and out?
No; that's just syscall overhead to add and remove the mappings.
The only thing I would be worried about, really, would be OS overhead
beyond the standard page mapping tables to keep track of mmaped
data. This might limit you to keeping a "cache" of mappings of just
a few hundred or thousand, say, rather than a few hundred thousand.
But this would only cost us more syscalls, which are relatively
inexpensive (compared to things like memory copies) anyway.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Jenkins | 2002-07-24 03:53:59 | Re: plpgsql |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-24 02:37:39 | Re: Linux max on shared buffers? |