| From: | "Ricardo Ryoiti S(dot) Junior" <suga(at)netbsd(dot)com(dot)br> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Urgent need of (paid) PostgreSQL support in New |
| Date: | 2002-12-11 11:08:41 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.44.0212110903190.27069-100000@unix-svr01.interno |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > OS caching is generally considered a waste of resource in databases.
> > Try to allocate as much as possible to shared buffers and set OS
> > caching to minimum.
>
> That is an exactly opposite of the truth. Leave as much for OS cache and
> do minimum use of shared buffers.
>
> Initially upping the shared buffers help but at some pointthe advantage starts
> to disappear. Decide that figure with trial and error but certainly it will be
> around 100-200MB for most cases..
Are there any studies around this? I remember that there where
other people saying the same thing. But at least logically, it seems that
the database server should know better than the OS what it needs cached or
not. Also, doesn't the db buffer cache requires a bit lower "overload" for
data to be accessed?
[]'s
Ricardo.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-12-11 11:19:55 | Re: Urgent need of (paid) PostgreSQL support in New |
| Previous Message | Ricardo Ryoiti S. Junior | 2002-12-11 11:02:22 | Re: Urgent need of (paid) PostgreSQL support in New |