| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
| Date: | 2014-04-17 19:17:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20140417191730.GQ2556@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > I wonder if it would help to actually tell the OS to read in buffers
> > that we're *evicting*... On the general notion that if the OS already
> > has them buffered then it's almost a no-op, and if it doesn't and it's
> > actually a 'hot' buffer that we're gonna need again shortly, the OS will
> > have it.
>
> But if it's actually gone cold, you're just forcing unnecessary read I/O,
> not to mention possibly causing something slightly warmer to be lost from
> kernel cache.
Certainly possible- see the email I just sent about another thought
around this.
Obviously, none of these thoughts are really fully formed solutions and
are, instead, just speculation and ideas.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-04-17 19:22:48 | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-04-17 19:16:57 | Re: How can we make beta testing better? |