Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D83F0F1.2020304@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache (Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/18/11 11:15 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > To take the opposite approach... has anyone looked at having the OS just manage all caching for us? Something like MMAPedshared buffers? Even if we find the issue with large shared buffers, we still can't dedicate serious amounts of memoryto them because of work_mem issues. Granted, that's something else on the TODO list, but it really seems like we'rere-inventing the wheels that the OS has already created here... As far as I know, no OS has a more sophisticated approach to eviction than LRU. And clock-sweep is a significant improvement on performance over LRU for frequently accessed database objects ... plus our optimizations around not overwriting the whole cache for things like VACUUM. 2-level caches work well for a variety of applications. Now, what would be *really* useful is some way to avoid all the data copying we do between shared_buffers and the FS cache. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: