X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051E9D7243 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:25:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18184-07 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:25:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com (brmea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.98.34]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB65D7166 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:25:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: from phys-bur-1 ([129.148.9.72]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j7ODPIWR027571 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:25:18 -0600 (MDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.bur-mail1.east.sun.com by bur-mail1.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) id <0ILQ00F01AIXYF@bur-mail1.east.sun.com> (original mail from Donald.Courtney@Sun.COM) for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [129.148.184.34] (gyama.East.Sun.COM [129.148.184.34]) by bur-mail1.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ILQ009QTAM6OB@bur-mail1.east.sun.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:21:12 -0400 From: Donald Courtney Subject: Re: Caching by Postgres In-reply-to: To: William Yu Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <430C7448.7030103@sun.com> Organization: Sun Microsystems MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20041221 References: <20050823171045.12112.qmail@web51309.mail.yahoo.com> <20050823124323.710a9dd3.frank@wiles.org> <430B6DE3.6040109@sun.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200508/380 X-Sequence-Number: 14127 Great discussion and illuminating for those of us who are still learning the subtleties of postGres. William To be clear - I built postgreSQL 8.1 64K bit on solaris 10 a few months ago and side by side with the 32 bit postgreSQL build saw no improvement. In fact the 64 bit result was slightly lower. I used the *same 64 bit S10 OS* for both versions. I think your experience makes sense since your change was from 32 to 64 bit Linux. From my experiment I am surmising that there will not be any file/os/buffer-cache scale up effect on the same OS with postgreSQL 64. I was testing on a 4 core system in both cases. William Yu wrote: > Donald Courtney wrote: > >> in that even if you ran postgreSQL on a 64 bit address space >> with larger number of CPUs you won't see much of a scale up >> and possibly even a drop. I am not alone in having the *expectation* > > > What's your basis for believing this is the case? Why would > PostgreSQL's dependence on the OS's caching/filesystem limit > scalability? I know when I went from 32bit to 64bit Linux, I got > *HUGE* increases in performance using the same amount of memory. And > when I went from 2x1P to 2xDC, my average cpu usage % dropped almost > in half. > >> that a database should have some cache size parameter and >> the option to skip the file system. If I use oracle, sybase, mysql >> and maxdb they all have the ability to size a data cache and move >> to 64 bits. > > > Josh Berkus has already mentioned this as conventional wisdom as > written by Oracle. This may also be legacy wisdom. Oracle/Sybase/etc > has been around for a long time; it was probably a clear performance > win way back when. Nowadays with how far open-source OS's have > advanced, I'd take it with a grain of salt and do my own performance > analysis. I suspect the big vendors wouldn't change their stance even > if they knew it was no longer true due to the support hassles. > > My personal experience with PostgreSQL. Dropping shared buffers from > 2GB to 750MB improved performance on my OLTP DB a good 25%. Going down > from 750MB to 150MB was another +10%. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly