Tom,
On 3/5/07 8:53 AM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, that seems to blow the "it's an L2 cache effect" theory out of the
> water. If it were a cache effect then there should be a performance
> cliff at the point where the cache size is exceeded. I see no such
> cliff, in fact the middle part of the curve is darn near a straight
> line on a log scale ...
Here's that cliff you were looking for:
Size of Orders table: 7178MB
Blocksize: 8KB
Shared_buffers Select Count Vacuum
(KB) (s) (s)
=======================================
248 5.52 2.46
368 4.77 2.40
552 5.82 2.40
824 6.20 2.43
1232 5.60 3.59
1848 6.02 3.14
2768 5.53 4.56
All of these were run three times and the *lowest* time reported. Also, the
behavior of "fast VACUUM after SELECT" begins abruptly at 1232KB of
shared_buffers.
These are Opterons with 2MB of L2 cache shared between two cores.
- Luke
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
