Re: lru cache replacement

From: Yutaka tanida <yutaka(at)nonsensecorner(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: lru cache replacement
Date: 2003-06-24 15:43:56
Message-ID: 20030625004354.5117.YUTAKA@nonsensecorner.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:27:09 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I tried to implement LRU-2 awhile ago, and got discouraged when I
> couldn't see any performance improvement. But I was using pgbench as
> the test case, and failed to think about its lack of seqscans.

How about cache hit rate?

> BTW, when you were running your test case, what shared_buffers did you
> use?

I use 16,64,256 and 4096.

---
Yutaka tanida<yutaka(at)hi-net(dot)zaq(dot)ne(dot)jp>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Austin Gonyou 2003-06-24 16:22:08 Table Partitioning
Previous Message Yutaka tanida 2003-06-24 15:35:42 Re: lru cache replacement