Re: Database Cache Hit Ratio (Warning)

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rajiv Ranjan <rajiv(dot)mca08(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Database Cache Hit Ratio (Warning)
Date: 2020-04-03 15:07:07
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYFdU-acE9j_HgONaQ-3oBSjNO63pB0qXJ7ppT=LcEokw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:17 AM Rajiv Ranjan <rajiv(dot)mca08(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Does this unnamed monitoring tool (and undefined query) really think
> higher percentages are worse or are you mis-communicating?
>
> Forget about the tool used for monitoring, important is to monitor the
> "Cache hit ratio" is good or we can ignore it?
>

The query at least would help, since it seems to be measuring something
other that "cache hit ratio".

I'm not in a position to judge whether monitoring "cache hit ratio" is
something you should be doing in your situation. It provides information
and is fairly cheap to capture and store. From the sounds of it you should
probably continue capturing the data but turn off the alert. That way if
there is a problem the data still exists to be considered. The metric
itself does not measure something of critical importance.

David J.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Klaver 2020-04-03 15:39:53 Re: Cstore_fdw issue.
Previous Message Rob Sargent 2020-04-03 13:55:23 Re: Backing out of privilege grants rabbit hole