On 4/4/12 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Why is this pgbench run accessing so much unhinted data that is > 1
>>> million transactions old? Do you believe those numbers? Looks weird.
>> I think this is in the nature of the workload pgbench does. Because
>> the updates are uniformly distributed, not concentrated 90% in 10% of
>> the buffers like most real-world systems, (and I believe pgbench only
>> does index lookups) the second time a tuple is looked at is going to
>> average N/2 transactions later where N is the number of tuples.
> That's a good point, and it makes me wonder whether pgbench is the right
> test case to be micro-optimizing around. It would be a good idea to at
> least compare the numbers for something with more locality of reference.
Jignesh, would DVDstore help for this?
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Daniel Farina||Date: 2012-04-04 23:09:37|
|Subject: Re: Faster compression, again|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-04-04 23:02:53|
|Subject: Re: patch: improve SLRU replacement algorithm |