Re: Priority table or Cache table
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Priority table or Cache table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LRuqvJcEJZQ1c1vKL2XVhPSJwZMVid0C+n=4z15TDePA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Priority table or Cache table (Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Priority table or Cache table
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> What is the configuration for test (RAM of m/c, shared_buffers,
> scale_factor, etc.)?
Here are the details:
CPU - 16 core, RAM - 252 GB
shared_buffers - 1700MB, buffer_cache_ratio - 70
wal_buffers - 16MB, synchronous_commit - off
checkpoint_timeout - 15min, max_wal_size - 5GB.
pgbench scale factor - 75 (1GB)
Load test table size - 1GB
It seems that test table can fit easily in shared buffers, I am not sure
this patch will be of benefit for such cases, why do you think it can be
beneficial for such cases?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: