Re: Priority table or Cache table

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I also ran the test script after making the same configuration changes that
> > you have specified. I found that I was not able to get the same performance
> > difference that you have reported.
> >
> > Following table lists the tps in each scenario and the % increase in
> > performance.
> >
> > Threads         Head     Patched            Diff
> >     1                  1669          1718              3%
> >     2                  2844          3195              12%
> >     4                  3909          4915              26%
> >     8                  7332          8329             14%
> >
>
>
> coming back to this old thread.
>
> I just tried a new approach for this priority table, instead of a
> entirely separate buffer pool,
> Just try to use a some portion of shared buffers to priority tables
> using some GUC variable
> "buffer_cache_ratio"(0-75) to specify what percentage of shared
> buffers to be used.
>
> Syntax:
>
> create table tbl(f1 int) with(buffer_cache=true);
>
> Comparing earlier approach, I though of this approach is easier to implement.
> But during the performance run, it didn't showed much improvement in
> performance.
> Here are the test results.
>