RE: Cache relation sizes? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tsunakawa, Takayuki
Subject RE: Cache relation sizes?
Date
Msg-id 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FB956CF@G01JPEXMBYT05
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Cache relation sizes?  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI [mailto:horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp]
> Just one counter in the patch *seems* to give significant gain
> comparing to the complexity, given that lseek is so complex or it
> brings latency, especially on workloads where file is scarcely
> changed. Though I didn't run it on a test bench.

I expect so, too.


> I'm not sure the duration of the 'permanent' there, but it
> disappears when server stops. Anyway it doesn't need to be
> permanent beyond a server restart.

Right, it exists while the server is running.


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Add pg_partition_root to get top-most parent of a partition tree
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries