| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "PGSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Doug Rady" <drady(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "Sherry Moore" <sherry(dot)moore(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |
| Date: | 2007-03-05 19:41:45 |
| Message-ID: | 21341.1173123705@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Itakgaki-san and I were discussing in January the idea of cache-looping,
> whereby a process begins to reuse its own buffers in a ring of ~32
> buffers. When we cycle back round, if usage_count==1 then we assume that
> we can reuse that buffer. This avoids cache swamping for read and write
> workloads, plus avoids too-frequent WAL writing for VACUUM.
> This would maintain the beneficial behaviour for OLTP,
Justify that claim. It sounds to me like this would act very nearly the
same as having shared_buffers == 32 ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2007-03-05 19:42:33 | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-03-05 19:41:40 | Re: [PATCHES] Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum |