Greg, I have a PostgreSQL database that runs on a dedicated server. The server has 24Gig of memory. What would be the max size I would ever want to set the shared_buffers to if I where to relying on the OS for disk caching approach? It seems that no matter how big your dedicated server is there would be a top limit to the size of shared_buffers. Thanks, Lance Campbell Project Manager/Software Architect Web Services at Public Affairs University of Illinois 217.333.0382 http://webservices.uiuc.edu -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-performance-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Smith Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:15 AM To: pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Volunteer to build a configuration tool On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Campbell, Lance wrote: > If everything I said is correct then I agree "Why have > effective_cache_size?" Why not just go down the approach that Oracle > has taken and require people to rely more on shared_buffers and the > general memory driven approach? Why rely on the disk caching of the OS? First off, it may help explain the dynamics here if you know that until fairly recent releases, the PostgreSQL shared_buffers cache had some performance issues that made it impractical to make it too large. It hasn't been that long that relying more heavily on the Postgres cache was technically feasible. I think the user community at large is still assimilating all the implications of that shift, and as such some of the territory with making the Postgres memory really large is still being mapped out. There are also still some issues left in that area. For example, the bigger your shared_buffers cache is, the worse the potential is for having a checkpoint take a really long time and disrupt operations. There are OS tunables that can help work around that issue; similar ones for the PostgreSQL buffer cache won't be available until the 8.3 release. In addition to all that, there are still several reasons to keep relying on the OS cache: 1) The OS cache memory is shared with other applications, so relying on it lowers the average memory footprint of PostgreSQL. The database doesn't have to be a pig that constantly eats all the memory up, while still utilizing it when necessary. 2) The OS knows a lot more about the disk layout and similar low-level details and can do optimizations a platform-independant program like Postgres can't assume are available. 3) There are more people working on optimizing the caching algorithms in modern operating systems than are coding on this project. Using that sophisticated cache leverages their work. "The Oracle Way" presumes that you've got such a massive development staff that you can solve these problems better yourself than the community at large, and then support that solution on every platform. This is why they ended up with solutions like raw partitions, where they just put their own filesystem on the disk and figure out how to make that work well everywhere. If you look at trends in this area, at this point the underlying operating systems have gotten good enough that tricks like that are becoming marginal. Pushing more work toward the OS is a completely viable design choice that strengthens every year. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
