From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
Date: | 2015-04-15 02:02:49 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZHzDADhExtdRdjPFsBTM=6FwJ4F-KMGEr18fff29P_Pg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> Why is that good?
We did discuss this before. I've recapped some of what I believe to
be the most salient points below.
> I think that people were all too quick to dismiss the idea of a wall
> time interval playing some role here (at least as a defense against
> correlated references, as a correlated reference period). I suppose
> that that's because it doesn't fit with an intuition that says that
> that kind of interval ought to be derived algebraically - magic delay
> settings are considered suspect.
Yep, Tom gave that reason here:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/11258.1397673898@sss.pgh.pa.us
But there was also this point from Andres - gettimeofday is not free:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140416075307.GC3906@awork2.anarazel.de
And this point from me - this can degrade to random eviction under
high pressure:
You'll notice that my proposal avoids all three of those objections.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2015-04-15 02:10:10 | Re: FPW compression leaks information |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-15 01:53:59 | Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes |