From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Seq scans status update |
Date: | 2007-05-30 22:23:58 |
Message-ID: | 1180563838.26915.192.camel@dogma.v10.wvs |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 17:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> According to Heikki's explanation here
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-05/msg00498.php
> each backend doing a heapscan would collect its own ring of buffers.
> You might have a few backends that are always followers, never leaders,
> and so never actually fetch any pages --- but for each backend that
> actually did any I/O there would be a separate ring. In practice I'd
> expect the lead would "change hands" pretty often and so you'd see all
> the backends accumulating their own rings.
>
Oh, I see what you mean. The rings will actually become sparsely
populated with many concurrent scans, and therefore, extend outside of
L2 cache.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-05-31 07:40:15 | Re: Seq scans status update |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-30 21:45:51 | Re: Seq scans status update |