From: Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
To: Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Cc: Martin Nickel <martin@portant.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: What gets cached?
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:32:48 +0200
Message-ID: <20051024153248.GA24601@samfundet.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <33c6269f0510240809k47f91a71t387a0b5ab0339f4c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <pan.2005.10.21.12.34.29.712700@portant.com>
<1129931087.19971.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>
<33c6269f0510240809k47f91a71t387a0b5ab0339f4c@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 11:09:55AM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
> Just to play devils advocate here for as second, but if we have an algorithm
> that is substational better than just plain old LRU, which is what I believe
> the kernel is going to use to cache pages (I'm no kernel hacker), then why
> don't we apply that and have a significantly larger page cache a la Oracle?
There have (AFAIK) been reports of setting huge amounts of shared_buffers
(close to the total amount of RAM) performing much better in 8.1 than in
earlier versions, so this might actually be okay these days.
I haven't heard of anybody reporting increase setting such values, though.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: sgunderson@bigfoot.com, armtuk@gmail.com, neilc@samurai.com, martin@portant.com
Subject: Re: What gets cached?
In-Reply-To: <20051024153248.GA24601@samfundet.no>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox