From: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] ARC Memory Usage analysis |
Date: | 2004-11-01 01:11:45 |
Message-ID: | cm42gu$14nu$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-performance |
Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:
>
> As a result, I was intending to inflate the value of
> effective_cache_size to closer to the amount of unused RAM on some of
> the machines I admin (once I've verified that they all have a unified
> buffer cache). Is that correct?
>
Effective cache size is IMHO a "bogus" parameter on postgresql.conf,
this because:
1) That parameter is not intended to instruct postgres to use that ram but
is only an hint to the engine on what the "DBA" *believe* the OS cache
memory for postgres
2) This parameter change only the cost evaluation of plans ( and not soo
much )
so don't hope to double this parameter and push postgres to use more RAM.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-11-01 01:16:38 | Win32 lost signals open item |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2004-11-01 00:58:15 | Re: Suggestion: additional system views |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-11-01 03:59:34 | Re: Where is the link to cygwin? |
Previous Message | a_ogawa | 2004-10-31 14:29:37 | Re: Cache last known per-tuple offsets to speed long tuple |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2004-11-01 12:59:49 | Re: Thanks Chariot Solutions |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-11-01 00:01:15 | Re: Speeding up Gist Index creations |