| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "Sherry Moore" <sherry(dot)moore(at)sun(dot)com>, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, "PGSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Doug Rady" <drady(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |
| Date: | 2007-03-12 14:30:19 |
| Message-ID: | 15267.1173709819@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I tested your patch with VACUUM FREEZE. The performance was improved when
> I set scan_recycle_buffers > 32. I used VACUUM FREEZE to increase WAL traffic,
> but this patch should be useful for normal VACUUMs with backgrond jobs!
Proving that you can see a different in a worst-case scenario is not the
same as proving that the patch is useful in normal cases.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-12 14:32:44 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 3 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-12 13:21:10 | Re: Synchronized Scan update |