On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Ed L. wrote:
> On Tuesday February 10 2004 3:48, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Ed L. wrote:
> > > Interesting. Why leave very large tables to the kernel instead of the
> > > db cache? Assuming a dedicated DB server and a DB smaller than
> > > available RAM, why not give the DB enough RAM to get the entire DB into
> > > the DB cache? (Assuming you have the RAM).
> >
> > Because the kernel is more efficient (right now) at caching large data
> > sets.
> >
> > With the ARC cache manager that will likely wend it's way into 7.5, it's
> > quite a likely possibility that postgresql will be able to efficiently
> > handle a larger cache, but it will still be a shared memory cache, and
> > those are still usually much slower than the kernel's cache.
>
> Hmmm. Others have asserted/assumed they'd be roughly equivalent. It'd be
> interesting to see some real data measuring the performance of the shared
> mem cache vs. kernel cache. Anyone know of existing benchmarks?
Testing from various folks has shown that there is a maximum size of
somewhere around 256 meg or so where the returns diminish pretty quickly,
unless your working data sets are larger than that. I.e. setting a
database up that needs 20 megs to throw data around in with 200 megs of
buffers is usually slower than handing it 32 megs of buffer and letting
the kernel do it.
But ARC may change all of that. I'll have to grab a CVS snapshot and see
how it behaves with large datasets and shared buffers...
