X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EE59DC818 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:26:56 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10795-08 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:26:57 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E949DC80A for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:26:54 -0400 (AST) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D17CA56427; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:26:55 -0600 (CST) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:26:54 -0600 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:26:54 -0600 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Andre Felipe Machado Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: firebird X postgresql 8.1.2 windows, performance comparison Message-ID: <20060314202654.GS45250@pervasive.com> References: <20060307162842.M37264@techforce.com.br> <1142041197.7572.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1142041197.7572.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p4 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060314:andremachado@techforce.com.br::PHh0r+O1UBA3Pz6t:00000000 0000000000000000000000002hzi X-Hashcash: 1:20:060314:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::d3mw5WH7iteooXm7:00000 000000000000000000000000FjZ0 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.109 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109] X-Spam-Score: 0.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/196 X-Sequence-Number: 17633 On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:39:57PM -0300, Andre Felipe Machado wrote: > It seems that effective_cache_size does not tell postgresql to actually > use windows disk cache. No, it just tells PostgreSQL how much cache memory it should expect to have. > What parameter must be configured? > Do you have some suggestions? Well, you could try increasing shared_buffers, but the real question is why Windows isn't caching the data. Are you sure that the data you're reading is small enough to fit entirely in memory? Remember that Firebird has a completely different on-disk storage layout than PostgreSQL, so just because the table fits in memory there doesn't mean it will do so on PostgreSQL. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461