From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Readme of Buffer Management seems to have wrong sentence |
Date: | 2012-05-23 18:09:24 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1zUWt1ytD7RozVbwTMeyatbQeb0HF0Rh30Q0zkFnpWUKw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
>>>I don't think there is a clear picture yet of what benchmark to use for
> testing changes here.
> I will first try to generate such a scenario(benchmark). I have still not
> thought completely.
> However the idea in my mind is that scenario where buffer list is heavily
> operated upon.
> Operations where shared buffers are much less compare to the data in disk
> and the operations are distributed such that
> they require to access most of the data in disk randomly.
If most buffer reads actually have to read from disk, then that will
so throttle your throughput that you will not be able to make anything
else be relevant. You need to have shared_buffers be much smaller
than RAM, and have almost all the "disk" data resident in RAM but not
in shared_buffers.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-05-23 18:11:25 | Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-23 18:06:07 | Re: spgist metapage |