Message-ID: <40AE5248.8090807@samurai.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 15:02:32 -0400
From: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Macintosh/20040502)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rosser Schwarz <rschwarz@totalcardinc.com>
Cc: 'Vitaly Belman' <vitalib@012.net.il>,
	'Postgresql Performance' <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL caching
References: <002801c43f48$6d629930$2500fa0a@CardServices.TCI.com>
In-Reply-To: <002801c43f48$6d629930$2500fa0a@CardServices.TCI.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rosser Schwarz wrote:
> PostgreSQL uses the operating system's disk cache.

... in addition to its own buffer cache, which is stored in shared 
memory. You're correct though, in that the best practice is to keep the 
PostgreSQL cache small and give more memory to the operating system's 
disk cache.

> Pgsql uses the OS's disk cache instead of its own cache management
> because the former is more likely to persist.  If the postmaster
> managed the cache, as soon as the last connection died, the memory
> allocated for caching would be released, and all the cached data
> would be lost.

No; the cache is stored in shared memory. It wouldn't persist over 
postmaster restarts (without some scheme of saving and restoring it), 
but that has nothing to do with why the OS disk cache is usually kept 
larger than the PG shared buffer cache.

-Neil