From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bgwriter strategies |
Date: | 2007-07-06 15:44:47 |
Message-ID: | 5244.1183736687@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> buffers_to_clean = Max(buffers_used * 1.1,
>> buffers_to_clean * 0.999);
> That would be overly aggressive on a workload that's steady on average,
> but consists of small bursts. Like this: 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
> 100. You'd end up writing ~100 pages on every bgwriter round, but you
> only need an average of 20 pages per round.
No, you wouldn't be *writing* that many, you'd only be keeping that many
*clean*; which only costs more work if any of them get re-dirtied
between writing and use. Which is a fairly small probability if we're
talking about a small difference in the number of buffers to keep clean.
So I think the average number of writes is hardly different, it's just
that the backends are far less likely to have to do any of them.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-07-06 15:47:19 | Re: Bgwriter strategies |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-07-06 14:44:57 | Re: usleep feature for pgbench |