Re: shared_buffers performance
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: shared_buffers performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 21220.1208201514@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: shared_buffers performance (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: shared_buffers performance
Re: shared_buffers performance Re: shared_buffers performance |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: > The transition domain where performance drops dramatically as the database > starts to not fit in shared buffers but does still fit in filesystem cache. It looks to me like the knee comes where the DB no longer fits in filesystem cache. What's interesting is that there seems to be no synergy at all between shared_buffers and the filesystem cache. Ideally, very hot pages would stay in shared buffers and drop out of the kernel cache, allowing you to use a database approximating all-of-RAM before you hit the performance wall. It's clear that in this example that's not happening, or at least that only a small part of shared buffers isn't getting duplicated in filesystem cache. Of course, that's because pgbench reads a randomly-chosen row of "accounts" in each transaction, so that there's exactly zero locality of access. A more realistic workload would probably have a Zipfian distribution of account number touches, and might look a little better on this type of test. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: