On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 23:53, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Another issue is what we do with the effective_cache_size value once we > >> have a number we trust. We can't readily change the size of the ARC > >> lists on the fly. > > > Huh? I thought effective_cache_size was just used as an factor the cost > > estimation equation. > > Today, that is true. Jan is speculating about using it as a parameter > of the ARC cache management algorithm ... and that worries me.
Because it's so often set wrong I take it. But if it's set right, and it makes the the database faster to pay attention to it, then I'd be in favor of it. Or at least having a switch to turn on the ARC buffer's ability to look at it. Or is it some other issue, having to do with the idea of knowing effective cache size cause a positive effect overall on the ARC algorhythm? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org