Re: Buffer Requests Trace

From: Lucas Lersch <lucaslersch(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Buffer Requests Trace
Date: 2014-10-15 15:29:56
Message-ID: CAGR3jZDr8zo1fw2TA_ZW42aSyBXpCp0k81YFHzqKrtYst00OQA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I got the following numbers from my tpcc database:

Data size: ~6059MB
Index size: ~1390MB
Total size: ~7400MB

Even considering index-only scans, the ratio of around 50% of the database
pages being accessed seems unrealistic to me.

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:

> * Lucas Lersch (lucaslersch(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > So is it a possible normal behavior that running tpcc for 10min only
> access
> > 50% of the database? Furthermore, is there a guideline of parameters for
> > tpcc (# of warehouses, execution time, operations weight)?
>
> Depends- you may be aware that we support index-only scans in certain
> situations. This means that only the index page for a given relation
> (and the visibility map) are accessed, and the heap is not.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
>

--
Lucas Lersch

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2014-10-15 16:01:54 Re: [BUGS] BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-10-15 14:49:45 Re: [BUGS] BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.