On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 22:16 -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote: > You may know we've built something similar and have seen similar gains.
Cool > We're planning a modification that I think you should consider: when there > is a sequential scan of a table larger than the size of shared_buffers, we > are allowing the scan to write through the shared_buffers cache. Write? For which operations? I was thinking to do this for bulk writes also, but it would require changes to bgwriter's cleaning sequence. Are you saying to write say ~32 buffers then fsync them, rather than letting bgwriter do that? Then allow those buffers to be reused? > The hypothesis is that if a relation is of a size equal to or less than the > size of shared_buffers, it is "cacheable" and should use the standard LRU > approach to provide for reuse. Sounds reasonable. Please say more. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
