| From: | Lucas Lersch <lucaslersch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Buffer Requests Trace |
| Date: | 2014-10-14 17:10:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAGR3jZCDYJKm97-H5pHn7Hg-Vt0YjuudrEFhVO_GociE5Pwu5g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Aren't heap and index requests supposed to go through the shared buffers
anyway?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Lucas Lersch (lucaslersch(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > shared_buffers is 128MB and the version of pgsql is 9.3.5
>
> I suspect you're not tracking what you think you're tracking, which is
> why I brought up shared_buffers.
>
> ~14k * 8192 (page size) = ~110MB
>
> What it sounds like you're actually tracking are shared buffer requests
> and not heap or index requests.
>
> Now, perhaps the test you're running only touched 110MB of the 6G
> database, but that seems pretty unlikely.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
>
--
Lucas Lersch
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marco Nenciarini | 2014-10-14 17:17:27 | [RFC] Incremental backup v3: incremental PoC |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2014-10-14 17:04:00 | Re: Expose options to explain? (track_io_timing) |