Re: shared_buffers advice

From: "Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: "Nikolas Everett" <nik9000(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Dave Crooke" <dcrooke(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Paul McGarry" <paul(at)paulmcgarry(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: shared_buffers advice
Date: 2010-03-16 13:48:43
Message-ID: op.u9nxzhryeorkce@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> I think the logic you are referring to is the clock sweep buffer
> accounting
> scheme. That just makes sure that the most popular pages stay in the
> buffers. If your entire db fits in the buffer pool then it'll all get in
> there real fast.

Actually, I meant that in the case of a seq scan, PG will try to use just
a few buffers (a ring) in shared_buffers instead of thrashing the whole
buffers. But if there was actually a lot of free space in shared_buffers,
do the pages stay, or do they not ?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-03-16 14:30:32 Re: shared_buffers advice
Previous Message Nikolas Everett 2010-03-16 13:26:15 Re: shared_buffers advice