From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
Date: | 2014-05-07 18:20:34 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1zA9cLoq2=C_B3XhtDSrXq3JOw-HTNJPdTP8Tw6k19tZg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>wrote:
> On 2014-05-06 17:43:45 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > All this changes is the cost of
> > IndexScans that would use more than 25% of shared_buffers worth of
> > data. Hopefully not many of those in your workload. Changing the cost
> > doesn't necessarily prevent index scans either. And if there are many
> > of those in your workload AND you run more than one at same time, then
> > the larger setting will work against you. So the benefit window for
> > such a high setting is slim, at best.
>
Not only do you need to run more than one at a time, but they also must use
mostly disjoint sets of data, in order for the larger estimate to be bad.
>
> Why? There's many workloads where indexes are larger than shared buffers
> but fit into the operating system's cache. And that's precisely what
> effective_cache_size is about.
>
It is more about the size of the table referenced by the index, rather than
the size of the index. The point is that doing a large index scan might
lead you to visit the same table blocks repeatedly within quick succession.
(If a small index scan is on the inner side of a nested loop, then you
might access the same index leaf blocks and the same table blocks
repeatedly--that is why is only mostly about the table size, rather than
exclusively).
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-05-07 18:32:41 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-07 18:13:44 | Re: Wanted: jsonb on-disk representation documentation |