> > > > > we very successfully use a tmpfs volume for pgstat files (use a backport > > of multiple statfiles from 9.3 to 9.1 > > It works quite well as long as you have the objects (tables, indexes, > functions) spread across multiple databases. Once you have one database > with very large number of objects, tmpfs is not as effective. > > It's going to help with stats I/O, but it's not going to help with high > CPU usage (you're reading and parsing the stat files over and over) and > every rewrite creates a copy of the file. So if you have 400MB stats, > you will need 800MB tmpfs + some slack (say, 200MB). That means you'll > use ~1GB tmpfs although 400MB would be just fine. And this 600MB won't > be used for page cache etc. > > OTOH, it's true that if you have that many objects, 600MB of RAM is not > going to help you anyway. >
and just idea - can we use a database for storing these files. It can be used in unlogged tables. Second idea - hold a one bg worker as persistent memory key value database and hold data in memory with some optimizations - using anti cache and similar memory database fetures. Pavel > > Tomas > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
