Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?
| От | David Rowley |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKJS1f9W+nhzj_CV2wP++XH8j-onnv8boBqzqvu1vpe=uH2pQA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_sizeenough? ("Sam R." <samruohola@yahoo.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_sizeenough?
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 18:36, Sam R. <samruohola@yahoo.com> wrote: > Regarding double buffering: I do not know how much double buffering would slow down operations. > It could also be possible to turn off kernel page cache on our DB server, to avoid double buffering. Although, we may stillkeep it in use. I think you've misunderstood double buffering. The double buffering itself does not slow anything down. If the buffer is in shared buffers already then it does not need to look any further for it. Double buffering only becomes an issue when buffers existing 2 times in memory causes other useful buffers to appear 0 times. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: