From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
Date: | 2014-04-18 19:37:36 |
Message-ID: | 20140418193736.GB16269@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 04:46:31PM +0530, Atri Sharma wrote:
> This can be changed by introducing an ageing factor that sees how much time the
> current buffer has spend in shared buffers. If the time that the buffer has
> spent is large enough (relatively) and it is not hot currently, that means it
> has had its chance and can be evicted. This shall save the new page (3) from
> being evicted since it's time in shared buffers shall not be high enough to
> mandate eviction and it shall be given more chances.
>
> Since gettimeofday() is an expensive call and hence cannot be done in the tight
> loop, we can count the number of clocksweeps the current buffer has seen
> (rather, survived). This shall give us a rough idea of the estimate of the
> relative age of the buffer.
Counting clock sweeps is an intersting idea. I think one concern was
tracking hot buffers in cases where there is no memory pressure, and
hence the clock sweep isn't running --- I am not sure how this would
help in that case.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2014-04-18 19:51:29 | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-04-18 17:13:17 | Re: assertion failure 9.3.4 |