| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] ARC Memory Usage analysis |
| Date: | 2004-10-22 20:45:51 |
| Message-ID: | 18764.1098477951@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-performance |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> What do you think about my other theory to make C actually 2x effective
> cache size and NOT to keep T1 in shared buffers but to assume T1 lives
> in the OS buffer cache?
What will you do when initially fetching a page? It's not supposed to
go directly into T2 on first use, but we're going to have some
difficulty accessing a page that's not in shared buffers. I don't think
you can equate the T1/T2 dichotomy to "is in shared buffers or not".
You could maybe have a T3 list of "pages that aren't in shared buffers
anymore but we think are still in OS buffer cache", but what would be
the point? It'd be a sufficiently bad model of reality as to be pretty
much useless for stats gathering, I'd think.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-10-22 20:47:16 | check over the tar files ... |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-10-22 20:45:26 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-10-22 22:01:05 | Re: [PATCHES] ARC Memory Usage analysis |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-10-22 20:43:21 | Re: tsearch build on win32 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Manfred Spraul | 2004-10-22 20:55:38 | Re: futex results with dbt-3 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-22 20:37:14 | Re: Slow query |