| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dave Crooke <dcrooke(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul McGarry <paul(at)paulmcgarry(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: shared_buffers advice |
| Date: | 2010-03-16 22:25:26 |
| Message-ID: | 15895.1268778326@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane escribi:
>> That's not going to do anything towards reducing the actual I/O volume.
>> Although I suppose it might be useful if it just cuts the number of
>> seeks.
> Oh, they had no problems with I/O volume. It was relation extension
> lock that was heavily contended for them.
Really? I guess that serialized all the I/O ... I'll bet if we got rid
of that locking somehow, they *would* have a problem with I/O volume.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-03-16 22:29:22 | Re: shared_buffers advice |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-03-16 22:20:58 | Re: shared_buffers advice |