RE: Cache relation sizes?

From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Kyotaro HORIGUCHI' <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Cache relation sizes?
Date: 2019-02-06 08:29:54
Message-ID: 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FB956CF@G01JPEXMBYT05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI [mailto:horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp]
> Just one counter in the patch *seems* to give significant gain
> comparing to the complexity, given that lseek is so complex or it
> brings latency, especially on workloads where file is scarcely
> changed. Though I didn't run it on a test bench.

I expect so, too.

> I'm not sure the duration of the 'permanent' there, but it
> disappears when server stops. Anyway it doesn't need to be
> permanent beyond a server restart.

Right, it exists while the server is running.

Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2019-02-06 08:37:04 Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries
Previous Message Amit Langote 2019-02-06 08:26:48 Re: Add pg_partition_root to get top-most parent of a partition tree