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

Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache
Date: 2011-03-31 23:41:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 03/24/2011 03:36 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>  writes:
>>> It looks like the only way anything can ever get put on the free list
>>> right now is if a relation or database is dropped.  That doesn't seem
>>> too good.
>> Why not?  AIUI the free list is only for buffers that are totally dead,
>> ie contain no info that's possibly of interest to anybody.  It is *not*
>> meant to substitute for running the clock sweep when you have to discard
>> a live buffer.
> Turns out we've had this discussion before: and

Investigating this has been on the TODO list for four years now:

I feel that work in this area is blocked behind putting together a 
decent mix of benchmarks that can be used to test whether changes here 
are actually good or bad.  All of the easy changes to buffer allocation 
strategy, ones that you could verify by inspection and simple tests, 
were made in 8.3.  The stuff that's left has the potential to either 
improve or reduce performance, and which will happen is very workload 

Setting up systematic benchmarks of multiple workloads to run 
continuously on big hardware is a large, boring, expensive problem that 
few can justify financing (except for Jim of course), and even fewer 
want to volunteer time toward.  This whole discussion of cache policy 
tweaks is fun, but I just delete all the discussion now because it's 
just going in circles without a good testing regime.  The right way to 
start is by saying "this is the benchmark I'm going to improve with this 
change, and it has a profiled hotspot at this point".

Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance":

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thom BrownDate: 2011-03-31 23:54:18
Subject: Foreign table permissions and cloning
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2011-03-31 23:34:43
Subject: Re: Should psql support URI syntax?

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