Re: effective_cache_size is a real? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Gregory S Stark
Subject Re: effective_cache_size is a real?
Date
Msg-id 20060726071128.yadiqm7cggcg4cw8@webmail.mit.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: effective_cache_size is a real?  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Quoting Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>:

> On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 22:55 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Is it intentional that effective_cache_size is a real (as opposed to
>> integer)?  The initial revision of guc.c already has it that way, so it
>> was probably blindly adapted from the previous adhockery that had all
>> planner variables be doubles.
>
> Makes no sense to me as a real. It should be an integer, since it is the
> effective number of cache pages, not KB, MB or GB.

But cache pages are just a unit of memory themselves. From a user point 
of view
we should get away from having the DBA have to know how large the page size is
altogether except when actually tweaking it.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Security bugs
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench enhancements