| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Grzegorz Jaskiewicz" <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, "PGSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Doug Rady" <drady(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "Sherry Moore" <sherry(dot)moore(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |
| Date: | 2007-03-05 10:10:47 |
| Message-ID: | 87slckdmqg.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> The evidence seems to clearly indicate reduced memory writing due to an
> L2 related effect.
You might try using valgrind's cachegrind tool which I understand can actually
emulate various processors' cache to show how efficiently code uses it. I
haven't done much with it though so I don't know how applicable it would be to
a large-scale effect like this.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2007-03-05 10:14:34 | Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum |
| Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2007-03-05 10:04:09 | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |