From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, zxo102 ouyang <zxo102(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How to speed up the first-time-searching in pgsql? |
Date: | 2009-05-27 01:48:34 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10905261848y540b6276g94f803eca75bc60d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>> Also, in the morning, have a cron job crank up that does "select * from
>>> mybigtable" for each big table to load it into cache.
>
>> Just to clarify: on 8.3 and later versions, doing this doesn't do what
>> some people expect. Sequential scans like that will continuously re-use a
>> 256KB section of the PostgreSQL shared_buffers space, so this won't cause
>> all of that to get paged back in if the problem is related to it being
>> swapped out. It will pass everything through the OS buffer cache though
>> and prime it usefully, which might be all that's actually needed.
>
> Bearing in mind that this is a Windows server ... I seem to recall that
> the conventional wisdom is still to keep shared_buffers relatively small
> on Windows. So priming the OS cache is exactly what it's about.
> (Keeping that down should also help avoid the other scenario Scott was
> worried about, where shared memory itself gets paged out.)
Yeah, I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking OS cache up there.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nick | 2009-05-27 03:04:02 | Regular expression and array |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-27 01:43:01 | Re: How to speed up the first-time-searching in pgsql? |