Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant
Date
Msg-id 21341.1173123705@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Itakgaki-san and I were discussing in January the idea of cache-looping,
> whereby a process begins to reuse its own buffers in a ring of ~32
> buffers. When we cycle back round, if usage_count==1 then we assume that
> we can reuse that buffer. This avoids cache swamping for read and write
> workloads, plus avoids too-frequent WAL writing for VACUUM.

> This would maintain the beneficial behaviour for OLTP,

Justify that claim.  It sounds to me like this would act very nearly the
same as having shared_buffers == 32 ...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant
Next
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant