Re: Buffer Requests Trace

From: Lucas Lersch <lucaslersch(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Buffer Requests Trace
Date: 2014-10-14 17:10:57
Message-ID: CAGR3jZCDYJKm97-H5pHn7Hg-Vt0YjuudrEFhVO_GociE5Pwu5g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Aren't heap and index requests supposed to go through the shared buffers
anyway?

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:

> * Lucas Lersch (lucaslersch(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > shared_buffers is 128MB and the version of pgsql is 9.3.5
>
> I suspect you're not tracking what you think you're tracking, which is
> why I brought up shared_buffers.
>
> ~14k * 8192 (page size) = ~110MB
>
> What it sounds like you're actually tracking are shared buffer requests
> and not heap or index requests.
>
> Now, perhaps the test you're running only touched 110MB of the 6G
> database, but that seems pretty unlikely.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
>

--
Lucas Lersch

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marco Nenciarini 2014-10-14 17:17:27 [RFC] Incremental backup v3: incremental PoC
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2014-10-14 17:04:00 Re: Expose options to explain? (track_io_timing)