| From: | Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_buffercache: Add per-relation summary stats |
| Date: | 2026-03-02 10:16:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAKZiRmw1prTzB4DrU32AzPEN5tqE=XSpMNkZ86i-kkKq57F9kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 1, 2026 at 12:59 AM Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> See attached a patch that implements a new function,
> pg_buffercache_relation_stats(), which returns per-relfilenode
> statistics on the number of buffers, how many are dirtied/pinned, and
> their avg usage count.
>
> This can be used in monitoring scripts to know which relations are
> kept in shared buffers, to understand performance issues better that
> occur due to relations getting evicted from the cache. In our own
> monitoring tool (pganalyze) we've offered a functionality like this
> based on the existing pg_buffercache() function for a bit over a year
> now [0], and people have found this very valuable - but it doesn't
> work for larger database servers.
[..]
> (3 rows)
>
> Time: 20.991 ms
[..vs]
>
> Time: 2.912 ms
Hi Lukas, I have glanced at the patch briefly and couldn't find any
issues - patch looks solid, however I'm not sure if e.g. launching whole
NBuffers scan let's say every 5mins doesn't cause latency spikes on the
system? I mean introducing such function seems to invite users to use
pg_buffercache and I'm wondering if such regular pattern doesn't cause
issues? (this is not FUD :), just more like a question based on Your's
obervation)
Also have you quantified what was the breaking point of previous query?
(You wrote "larger database servers", but was that like 128GB+ shared_buffers?
and if so what would be the difference in terms of runtime there -- also
like ~7x?)
-J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2026-03-02 10:18:14 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |
| Previous Message | Ilia Evdokimov | 2026-03-02 09:35:15 | Re: Hash-based MCV matching for large IN-lists |