From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexei Vladishev <alexei(dot)vladishev(at)zabbix(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Multiple buffer cache? |
Date: | 2010-02-08 14:42:34 |
Message-ID: | 20100208144234.GC4113@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Greg Stark wrote:
> I doubt pinning buffers ever improve system on any halfway modern system. It
> will often *look* like it has improved performance because it improves the
> performance of the queries you're looking at -- but at the expense of
> slowing down everything else.
>
> There is a use case it would be useful for though. When you have some
> queries that are latency critical. Then you might want to pin the buffers
> those queries use to avoid having larger less urgent queries purge those
> buffers.
>
> If we had a way to mark latency critical queries that might be a more
> flexible interface but ewe would need some way to control just how critical
> they are. we wouldn't want to keep those buffets pinned forever.
This should be easy to test, no? Just set some variable while running
latency-critical queries that makes PinBuffer increment usage_count by
more than one when pinning a buffer. Such a buffer would have its usage
count typically higher than a buffer only used for regular queries.
To make this work we'd probably need a slightly larger value of
BM_MAX_USAGE_COUNT, I think.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Davor J. | 2010-02-08 14:55:54 | One column to multiple columns based on constraints? |
Previous Message | Marc Lustig | 2010-02-08 13:55:08 | error migrating database from 8.4 to 8.3 |