Re: Monitoring buffercache...

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Scott Marlowe
Тема Re: Monitoring buffercache...
Дата
Msg-id dcc563d10811241324t116f6e71j4863632b2c0c09a5@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Monitoring buffercache...  (Brad Nicholson <bnichols@ca.afilias.info>)
Ответы Re: Monitoring buffercache...  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Re: Monitoring buffercache...  (Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>)
Список pgsql-performance
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Brad Nicholson
<bnichols@ca.afilias.info> wrote:
>> I just ran it in a loop over and over on my 8 core opteron server and
>> it ran the load factor up by almost exactly 1.0.  Under our normal
>> daily load, it sits at 1.9 to 2.5, and it climbed to 2.9 under the new
>> load of running that query over and over.  So, it doesn't seem to be
>> blocking or anything.
>
> The internal docs for pg_buffercache_pages.c state:
>
> "To get a consistent picture of the buffer state, we must lock all
> partitions of the buffer map.  Needless to say, this is horrible
> for concurrency.  Must grab locks in increasing order to avoid
> possible deadlocks."

Well, the pg hackers tend to take a parnoid view (it's a good thing
TM) on things like this.  My guess is that the period of time for
which pg_buffercache takes locks on the buffer map are short enough
that it isn't a real big deal on a fast enough server.  On mine, it
certainly had no real negative effects for the 5 minutes or so it was
running in a loop.  None I could see, and we run hundreds of queries
per second on our system.

Of course, for certain other types of loads it could be a much bigger
issue.  But for our load, on our machine, it was virtually
unnoticeable.

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Andrus"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Hash join on int takes 8..114 seconds
Следующее
От: Chris
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: limit clause produces wrong query plan