Re: basic question (shared buffers vs. effective cache
От | Jack Orenstein |
---|---|
Тема | Re: basic question (shared buffers vs. effective cache |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 409FBBF8.8040506@archivas.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: basic question (shared buffers vs. effective cache ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: basic question (shared buffers vs. effective cache
|
Список | pgsql-general |
scott.marlowe wrote: > > shared_buffers is the amount of space postgresql can use as temp memory > space to put together result sets. It is not intended as a cache, and > once the last backend holding open a buffer space shuts down, the > information in that buffer is lost. If you're working on several large > data sets in a row, the buffer currently operates FIFO when dumping old > references to make room for the incoming data. > > Contrast this to the linux or BSD kernels, which cache everything they can > in the "spare" memory of the computer. This cache is maintained until > some other process requests enough memory to make the kernel give up some > of the otherwise unused memory, or something new pushes out something old. Do checkpoints operate on the Postgres-managed buffer, or the kernel-managed cache? Jack Orenstein
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: