From: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CPU and RAM |
Date: | 2005-12-23 04:29:42 |
Message-ID: | dofudn$1t0a$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote
>
> If the whole database is in RAM I wouldn't expect clustering to have any
> effect. Either you're doing a lot of merge joins or a few other cases
> where
> clustering might be helping you, or the cluster is helping you keep more
> of
> the database in ram avoiding the occasional disk i/o.
>
Hi Greg,
At first I think the same - notice that Tom has submitted a patch to scan a
whole page in one run, so if Harry tests against the cvs tip, he could see
the real benefits. For example, a index scan may touch 5000 tuples, which
involves 5000 pairs of lock/unlock buffer, no matter how the tuples are
distributed. After the patch, if the tuples belong to a few pages, then a
significant number of lock/unlock are avoided.
Regards,
Qingqing
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anton Maksimenkov | 2005-12-23 09:02:05 | DELETE, INSERT vs SELECT, UPDATE || INSERT |
Previous Message | David Lang | 2005-12-23 04:14:53 | Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1? |