From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] ARC Memory Usage analysis |
Date: | 2004-10-30 16:53:36 |
Message-ID: | 5985.1099155216@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-performance |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> On 10/26/2004 1:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> Another issue is what we do with the effective_cache_size value once we
>>> have a number we trust. We can't readily change the size of the ARC
>>> lists on the fly.
>>
> Huh? I thought effective_cache_size was just used as an factor the cost
> estimation equation.
>>
>> Today, that is true. Jan is speculating about using it as a parameter
>> of the ARC cache management algorithm ... and that worries me.
> If we need another config option, it's not that we are running out of
> possible names, is it?
No, the point is that the value is not very trustworthy at the moment.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-30 17:04:29 | Re: Signature change for SPI_cursor_open |
Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-10-30 16:03:56 | Problems using pgxs on Win32 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-30 17:51:20 | Re: Cache last known per-tuple offsets to speed long tuple access |
Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-10-30 16:03:56 | Problems using pgxs on Win32 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Bertheau | 2004-10-30 21:12:25 | Re: can't handle large number of INSERT/UPDATEs |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-10-30 13:40:39 | Re: [PATCHES] ARC Memory Usage analysis |