Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame
Date: 2011-08-12 12:35:05
Message-ID: CA+U5nMKLn4fKOUiL+NkqQFUW-t2yC+g44MD+neAFwVcthmEPow@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>  But it will be
> a loser to apply the optimization to data sets that would otherwise
> have fit in shared_buffers.

Spoiling the cache is a bad plan, even if it makes the current query faster.

I think we should make the optimisation stronger still and use
FADV_DONT_NEED on blocks that fall from the ring buffer. Spoiling the
OS cache is a problem as well.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-08-12 12:40:23 Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-08-12 12:28:49 Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame