Re: Docs about buffers and sortmem setting
От | Andrew Sullivan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Docs about buffers and sortmem setting |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20021114083514.A9625@mail.libertyrms.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Docs about buffers and sortmem setting ("Bjoern Metzdorf" <bm@turtle-entertainment.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Docs about buffers and sortmem setting
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:19:57PM +0100, Bjoern Metzdorf wrote: > How about 32-bit Linux machines with more than 1 GB RAM? We have a 2 GB RAM > machine running, and I gave 800 MB to postgres shared buffers. AFAIK Linux > user space can handle only 1 GB and the rest is for kernel buffer and > cache.. How big is your data set? If it's smaller than 800 MB, you're wasting the buffers anyway. The thing is that the OS will buffer what you read anyway, so depending on how large your buffers are and how much memory your filesystem is able to use for its buffersm, you may actually be storing twice in memory everything in the shared memory: once in the shared area, and another time in the filesystem buffer. On our 16 G Solaris (Ultra SPARC) boxes, we found that using a gig for shared buffers was actually worse than a slightly lower amount, under Sol 7. The filesystem buffering is too good, so even though the system call to the "filesystem" (which turns out to be just to memory, because of the buffer) has a measurable cost, the implementation of the shared-buffer handling is bad enough that it costs _more_ to manage large buffers. Smaller buffers seem not to face the difficulty. I haven't a clue why. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: