Re: Caching by Postgres - Mailing list pgsql-performance
From | Donald Courtney |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Caching by Postgres |
Date | |
Msg-id | 430B6DE3.6040109@sun.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Caching by Postgres (Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org>) |
Responses |
Re: Caching by Postgres
Re: Caching by Postgres Re: Caching by Postgres Re: Caching by Postgres |
List | pgsql-performance |
I mean well with this comment - This whole issue of data caching is a troubling issue with postreSQL in that even if you ran postgreSQL on a 64 bit address space with larger number of CPUs you won't see much of a scale up and possibly even a drop. I am not alone in having the *expectation* that a database should have some cache size parameter and the option to skip the file system. If I use oracle, sybase, mysql and maxdb they all have the ability to size a data cache and move to 64 bits. Is this a crazy idea - that a project be started to get this adopted? Is it too big and structural to contemplate? From one who likes postgreSQL dc Frank Wiles wrote: >On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT) >gokulnathbabu manoharan <gokulnathbabu@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>Hi all, >> >>I like to know the caching policies of Postgresql. >>What parameter in the postgresql.conf affects the >>cache size used by the Postgresql? As far as I have >>searched my knowledge of the parameters are >> >>1. shared_buffers - Sets the limit on the amount of >>shared memory used. If I take this is as the cache >>size then my performance should increase with the >>increase in the size of shared_buffers. But it seems >>it is not the case and my performance actually >>decreases with the increase in the shared_buffers. I >>have a RAM size of 32 GB. The table which I use more >>frequently has around 68 million rows. Can I cache >>this entire table in RAM? >> >> > > increasing shared_buffers to a point helps, but after > a certain threshold it can actually degree performance. > > > >>2. work_mem - It is the amount of memory used by an >>operation. My guess is once the operation is complete >>this is freed and hence has nothing to do with the >>caching. >> >> > > This is the amount of memory used for things like sorts and > order bys on a per backend process basis. > > > >>3. effective_cache_size - The parameter used by the >>query planner and has nothing to do with the actual >>caching. >> >> > > The instructs the query planner on how large the operating > system's disk cache is. There isn't a built in cache, PostgreSQL > relies on the operating system to cache the on disk information > based on how often it is used. In most cases this is probably > more accurate anyway. > > I wrote an article on PostgreSQL performance tuning that has > links to several other related sites, you can find it here: > > http://www.revsys.com/writings/postgresql-performance.html > > --------------------------------- > Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org> > http://www.wiles.org > --------------------------------- > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match > >
pgsql-performance by date: