Re: shared_buffers performance

Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Gaetano Mendola" <mendola@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> 
>> The following graph re****ts the results:
>>
>> http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=totalid7.png
> 
> That's a *fascinating* graph.

It is, isn't it? Thanks Gaetano.

> It seems there are basically three domains. 
> 
> The small domain where the database fits in shared buffers -- though
actually
> this domain seems to hold until the accounts table is about 1G so maybe
it's
> more that the *indexes* fit in memory. Here larger shared buffers do
clearly
> win.

I think this is actually in two parts - you can see it clearly on the 
red trace (64MB), less so on the green (256MB) and not at all on the 
blue (512MB). Presumably the left-hand steeper straight-line decline 
starts with the working-set in shared-buffers, and the "knee" is where 
we're down to just indexes in shared-buffers.

With the blue I guess you just get the first part, because by the time 
you're overflowing shared-buffers, you've not got enough disk-cache to 
take up the slack for you.

I wonder what difference 8.3 makes to this?

-- 
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance