From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Doug Rady <drady(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Sherry Moore <sherry(dot)moore(at)sun(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |
Date: | 2007-03-05 21:36:39 |
Message-ID: | 22773.1173130599@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Mark, can you detect "hiccups" in the read rate using
>> your setup?
> I think so, here's the vmstat output for 400MB of shared_buffers during
> the scan:
Hm, not really a smoking gun there. But just for grins, would you try
this patch and see if the numbers change?
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
unknown_filename | text/plain | 785 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-03-05 21:42:57 | Re: proposal: custom variables management |
Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2007-03-05 21:28:21 | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |