Re: Performance

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance
Date: 2011-04-14 03:39:44
Message-ID: BANLkTik41qQZPWxk=OGe28vYqkvpFa22Gw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:

> Workload A: Touches just a very small portion of the database, to the
> 'active' part actually fits into the memory. In this case the cache hit
> ratio can easily be close to 99%.
>
> Workload B: Touches large portion of the database, so it hits the drive
> very often. In this case the cache hit ratio is usually around RAM/(size
> of the database).

I've had this kind of split-brain operation in the past, where 99% of
all accesses would be cached, and the 1% that weren't needed their own
tuning. Luckily you can tune by user (alter user set random_page_cost
etc) so I was able to do that. One of the best features of pgsql
imnsho.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2011-04-14 04:23:23 Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency.
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2011-04-14 00:37:05 Re: Performance