Subject | RE: [ib-support] Page buffers |
---|---|
Author | Nico Callewaert |
Post date | 2001-04-17T09:49:53Z |
Thanks Paul
Nico
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Paul Reeves [mailto:paul@...]
Verzonden: dinsdag 17 april 2001 10:54
Aan: ib-support@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [ib-support] Page buffers
Nico Callewaert wrote:
64MB ram.) 4096 consistently came out worse than both lesser and greater
values.
I do not understand why, but there is definitely a black hole there.
I was testing by doing a 'group by' on a large table. The tests were
repeated to
get an average, then the cache was flushed by doing a 'group by' on another
large table.
Interestingly enough it also appears that if the cache is frequently forced
to
flush in that manner the cost of memory mgt of a large buffer outweighs the
benefits provided of easy access to data in memory. Which is why overall I
would
recommend 1024 for a starting point and do tests to establish if a better
setting can be found for a particular application.
Paul
--
Paul Reeves
http://www.ibphoenix.com
taking InterBase further
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Nico
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Paul Reeves [mailto:paul@...]
Verzonden: dinsdag 17 april 2001 10:54
Aan: ib-support@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [ib-support] Page buffers
Nico Callewaert wrote:
>Not on the tests I did (very limited - networked client against an NT box w/
> Thanks Paul,
>
> And a page size of 4096, is that ok ?
>
64MB ram.) 4096 consistently came out worse than both lesser and greater
values.
I do not understand why, but there is definitely a black hole there.
I was testing by doing a 'group by' on a large table. The tests were
repeated to
get an average, then the cache was flushed by doing a 'group by' on another
large table.
Interestingly enough it also appears that if the cache is frequently forced
to
flush in that manner the cost of memory mgt of a large buffer outweighs the
benefits provided of easy access to data in memory. Which is why overall I
would
recommend 1024 for a starting point and do tests to establish if a better
setting can be found for a particular application.
Paul
--
Paul Reeves
http://www.ibphoenix.com
taking InterBase further
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/