| From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dan Armbrust <daniel(dot)armbrust(dot)list(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question |
| Date: | 2009-07-08 20:44:16 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.GSO.2.01.0907081642070.14242@westnet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
> He's only got 100MB of shared buffers, which doesn't seem like much
> considering it's apparently a fairly beefy system. I definitely
> don't see how one CPU spinning over the buffer headers in BufferSync
> is going to create the sort of hiccup he's describing.
Agreed, it doesn't seem like a likely cause. If the problem reduces in
magnitude in proportion with the size of the buffer cache, we might have
to accept that's it's true regardless; that's why I was curious to see
what impact that had on the test results.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dan Armbrust | 2009-07-08 21:02:45 | Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-08 20:29:07 | Re: Checkpoint Tuning Question |