On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Greg Smith wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> BTW the only reason you don't see buffers having a larger "usage" is >> that the counters are capped at that value. >> > > Right, the usage count is limited to 5 for no reason besides "that seems like > a good number". We keep hoping to come across a data set and application > with a repeatable benchmark where most of the data ends up at 5, but there's > still a lot of buffer cache churn, to allow testing whether a further > increase could be valuable. So far nobody has actually found such a set. If > I shrunk shared_buffers on Ben's data I think I could create that situation. > As is usually the case, I doubt he has another server with 128GB of RAM > hanging around just to run that experiment on though, which has always been > the reason why I can't simulate this more easily--systems it's prone to > happening on aren't cheap.
Well as it happens we *did* just get our third slony node in today, and it could spend some time doing burn-in experiments if it would be helpful. Unfortunately, I won't be able to drive the same load against it, so I don't know how useful it would be. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
