Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:11:17PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote: > > I think where it makes sense is when you have something like a report > > server where the result sets may be huge, but the parellel load is load, > > i.e. 5 or 10 users tossing around 100 Meg or more at time. > > In our case, we were noticing that truss showed an unbelievable > amount of time spent by the postmaster doing open() calls to the OS > (this was on Solaris 7). So we thought, "Let's try a 2G buffer > size." 2G was more than enough to hold the entire data set under > question. Once the buffer started to fill, even plain SELECTs > started taking a long time. The buffer algorithm is just not that > clever, was my conclusion. > > (Standard disclaimer: not a long, controlled test. It's just a bit > of gossip.)
I know this is an old email, but have you tested larger shared buffers in CVS HEAD with Jan's new cache replacement policy? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
