Thank you very much for your advice, Ann, I'll remember that.

Greetings.

Walter.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Ann Harrison <aharrison@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Alexey Kovyazin <ak@...> wrote:
>
> > Ann,
> > ...
>
> >
> > By allocating that much memory to the database page cache, you reduce the
> > amount of memory available for other uses, like the system page cache.
> >
> > if Marcelo wants to achieve better performance, not just put database to
> > the memory, I think it's good to mention here that performance could be
> > worse in this case. It can be very bad in case of Classic/SuperClassic
> and
> > slightly worse in case of SuperServer (he did not indicate what
> architecture
> > he uses and how many users are there).
> >
>
> Two or three other people had offered better suggestions, and in sections
> of
> my message that you didn't quote, I did say that using the database page
> cache to move the database to memory was not a good idea. However what
> Marcelo asked was how to calculate the cache size to put his whole database
> in memory. Whether or not that's a good idea, it is a straight-forward
> calculation.
>
>
> >
> > Certainly such vacuous cases are interesting to discuss, but I think
> people
> > in support forum can recognize it as signal to change their Firebird
> > configurations, which will lead to unforeseen consequences.
> >
> >
> If anyone out there is considering using the Firebird configurations to
> move
> an whole database into memory, THAT IS A BAD IDEA! Don't do it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ann
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]