Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:32:48 +0200
From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
To: Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>,
	Martin Nickel <martin@portant.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: What gets cached?
Message-ID: <20051024153248.GA24601@samfundet.no>
References: <pan.2005.10.21.12.34.29.712700@portant.com>
	<1129931087.19971.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<33c6269f0510240809k47f91a71t387a0b5ab0339f4c@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <33c6269f0510240809k47f91a71t387a0b5ab0339f4c@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

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/