Re: performance tuning: shared_buffers, sort_mem; swap
От | David Gilbert |
---|---|
Тема | Re: performance tuning: shared_buffers, sort_mem; swap |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15705.36038.645823.820155@canoe.velocet.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: performance tuning: shared_buffers, sort_mem; swap (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: performance tuning: shared_buffers, sort_mem; swap
|
Список | pgsql-admin |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: [on shared memory size, deleted] Tom> There are also a number of fixed-size data structures in shared Tom> memory, and I believe we throw on a 10% fudge factor for good Tom> luck after we're done counting up what we think we need. Tom> You could work out the effective multipliers for these parameters Tom> with a little bit of experimental effort... I don't often ask a question, but it's been bugging me for some time: is there any reason why PostgreSQL must use SysV shared memory? Coming from the BSD camp, I've often pondered why it doesn't use BSD-style shared memory (which is often easier to allocate in the BSD world). Dave. -- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Velocet Communications. | Two things can only be | |Mail: dgilbert@velocet.net | equal if and only if they | |http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: