Re: shared_buffers advice

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 22:29:22
Message-ID: 20100316222922.GJ3037@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane escribió:
> >> 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.

Well, that would solve the problem as far as I'm concerned and they'd
have to start talking to their storage provider ;-)

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-03-16 23:54:52 Re: shared_buffers advice
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-03-16 22:25:26 Re: shared_buffers advice