Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Claudio Freire
Тема Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server
Дата
Msg-id CAGTBQpbR35EDtEBcUepJCzU03px8=rHZXUvwCCbKnadFtyDfTA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server  (Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>)
Список pgsql-performance
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com> wrote:
>> Why does nobody every mention that concurrent access has to be taken
>> into account?
>
>
> That's actually a good point. But if you have one giant database, the
> overlap of which tables are being accessed by various sessions is going to
> be immense.

That's why I said "several huge indices". If regularly accessed
indices are separate, and big, it means they don't overlap nor do they
fit in any cache.


В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Shaun Thomas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server
Следующее
От: Shane Hathaway
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Ways to speed up ts_rank