Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance?
Date
Msg-id 1065396767.466.12.camel@tokyo
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance?  (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>)
Responses Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance?
Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance?
List pgsql-performance
On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 11:22, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Also, a vacuum pretty much destroys your shared buffers, so you have
> to be aware of that trade-off too.

True, although there is no reason that this necessary needs to be the
case (at least, as far as the PostgreSQL shared buffer goes). As has
been pointed out numerous times on -hackers and in the literature, using
LRU for a DBMS shared buffer cache is far from optimal, and better
algorithms have been proposed (e.g. LRU-K, ARC). We could even have the
VACUUM command inform the bufmgr that the pages it is in the process of
reading in are part of a seqscan, and so are unlikely to be needed in
the immediate future.

-Neil



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Browne
Date:
Subject: Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance?