On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:11:17PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> I think where it makes sense is when you have something like a report
> server where the result sets may be huge, but the parellel load is load,
> i.e. 5 or 10 users tossing around 100 Meg or more at time.
In our case, we were noticing that truss showed an unbelievable
amount of time spent by the postmaster doing open() calls to the OS
(this was on Solaris 7). So we thought, "Let's try a 2G buffer
size." 2G was more than enough to hold the entire data set under
question. Once the buffer started to fill, even plain SELECTs
started taking a long time. The buffer algorithm is just not that
clever, was my conclusion.
(Standard disclaimer: not a long, controlled test. It's just a bit
of gossip.)
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
