On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:20:49PM -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
> Well, part of the reason is that a lot of the data in shared_buffers
> has to be effectively duplicated in the kernel's I/O caches, because
> it's frequently accessed. So while I'd think the cost of fetching a
> page from the buffer pool is lower than from the OS' cache, increasing
> the size of the Postgres buffer pool effectively decreases the total
> amount of RAM available for caching.
Well, yes, but on a machine with 16 G and a data set < 16 G, that's
not the issue. A 1G shared buffer is too big anyway, according to
our experience: it's fast at the beginning, but performance degrades.
I don't know why.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110