Re: increasing shared buffers: how much should be removed from OS filesystem cache?
От | Dave Cramer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: increasing shared buffers: how much should be removed from OS filesystem cache? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3743D7B4-2749-41C3-ADE1-39B86F7C98D4@fastcrypt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | increasing shared buffers: how much should be removed from OS filesystem cache? (Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@mnc.ch>) |
Ответы |
Re: increasing shared buffers: how much should be removed from OS filesystem cache?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Guillaume 1G is really not a significant amount of memory these days, That said 6-10% of available memory should be given to an 8.0 or older version of postgresql Newer versions work better around 25% I'm not sure what you mean by mechanically removed from effective_cache effective cache is really a representation of shared buffers plus OS cache Dave On 1-Sep-06, at 1:00 PM, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > Hi, > > I've been looking at the results from the pg_statio* tables, to > view the impact of increasing the shared buffers to increase > performance. > > As expected, increasing from the default by a factor of 10~20 > moves table/index disk blocks reads to cache hits, but the > overall service time of my test page is not changed (I'm testing > with a set of queries implying an increase of 170,000 of > sum(heap_blks_hit) and 2,000 of sum(idx_blks_hit) from > pg_statio_user_tables). > > I've seen that documentation says: > > data that is not in the PostgreSQL buffer cache may still > reside in the kernel's I/O cache, and may therefore still be > fetched without requiring a physical read > > I guess this is the best explanation (btw, my test machine runs > Linux 2.6 on 1G of RAM), but I'm still wondering what should be > expected from moving caching from OS filesystem to PG - probably > PG can "cleverly" flush its cache when it is full (e.g. table > data before index data maybe?), whereas the OS will do it > "blindly", but I'm wondering about the limits of this behaviour, > particularly considering that being "very clever" about cache > flush would probably need realtime query statistics which I am > not sure PG does. > > After all, memory added to shared buffers should be mecanically > removed from effective cache size (or others), so I cannot just > increase it until the OS cannot cache anymore :) > > -- > Guillaume Cottenceau > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: