From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
Date: | 2014-04-15 02:11:01 |
Message-ID: | 20140415021101.GC9072@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 05:45:56PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > I am glad you are looking at this. You are right that it requires a
> > huge amount of testing, but clearly our code needs improvement in this
> > area.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Does anyone recall the original justification for the recommendation
> that shared_buffers never exceed 8GiB? I'd like to revisit the test
> case, if such a thing exists.
I have understood it be that the overhead of managing over 1 million
buffers is too large if you aren't accessing more than 8GB of data in a
five-minute period. If are accessing that much, it might be possible to
have a win over 8GB.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-15 02:15:25 | Re: API change advice: Passing plan invalidation info from the rewriter into the planner? |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-04-15 02:06:12 | Re: API change advice: Passing plan invalidation info from the rewriter into the planner? |