Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMKLn4fKOUiL+NkqQFUW-t2yC+g44MD+neAFwVcthmEPow@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

>  But it will be
> a loser to apply the optimization to data sets that would otherwise
> have fit in shared_buffers.

Spoiling the cache is a bad plan, even if it makes the current query faster.

I think we should make the optimisation stronger still and use
FADV_DONT_NEED on blocks that fall from the ring buffer. Spoiling the
OS cache is a problem as well.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame