Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache
Date
Msg-id 4D83F0F1.2020304@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache  (Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>)
Responses Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache
List 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
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Radosław Smogura
Date:
Subject: Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Basic Recovery Control functions for use in Hot Standby. Pause,