Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCHES] ARC Memory Usage analysis

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ARC Memory Usage analysis
Date: 2004-10-22 20:45:51
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patchespgsql-performance
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> What do you think about my other theory to make C actually 2x effective 
> cache size and NOT to keep T1 in shared buffers but to assume T1 lives 
> in the OS buffer cache?

What will you do when initially fetching a page?  It's not supposed to
go directly into T2 on first use, but we're going to have some
difficulty accessing a page that's not in shared buffers.  I don't think
you can equate the T1/T2 dichotomy to "is in shared buffers or not".

You could maybe have a T3 list of "pages that aren't in shared buffers
anymore but we think are still in OS buffer cache", but what would be
the point?  It'd be a sufficiently bad model of reality as to be pretty
much useless for stats gathering, I'd think.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Manfred SpraulDate: 2004-10-22 20:55:38
Subject: Re: futex results with dbt-3
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-10-22 20:37:14
Subject: Re: Slow query

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2004-10-22 20:47:16
Subject: check over the tar files ...
Previous:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2004-10-22 20:45:26

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2004-10-22 22:01:05
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ARC Memory Usage analysis
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-10-22 20:43:21
Subject: Re: tsearch build on win32

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group