Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Haribabu Kommi >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > What is the configuration for test (RAM of

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Haribabu Kommi < > kommi.harib...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > What is the configuration for test (RAM of m/c, shared_buffers, > > scale_factor, e

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > What is the configuration for test (RAM of m/c, shared_buffers, > scale_factor, etc.)? Here are the details: CPU - 16 core, RAM - 252 GB shared_buffers - 1700MB, buffer_cache_rati

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Beena Emerson wrote: > > > > I also ran the test script after making the same configuration changes that > > you have specified. I found that I was not able to get the same performance > > difference that

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Beena Emerson wrote: > > I also ran the test script after making the same configuration changes that > you have specified. I found that I was not able to get the same performance > difference that you have reported. > > Following table lists the tps in each scenar

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the test. > Please find the re-based patch with a temp fix for correcting the problem. > I will a submit a proper patch fix later. > > Please note that the new patch still gives assertion error: TRAP: Fa

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On 05/26/2014 04:16 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote: >> On 05/20/2014 01:46 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Haribabu Kommi >>> wrote: ... I Implemented a proof of concept patch to see whether the buffer pool

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote: > On 05/20/2014 01:46 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >>> ... >>> I Implemented a proof of concept patch to see whether the buffer pool >>> split can improve the performance or not. >>> >>> S

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On 05/20/2014 01:46 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> ... >> I Implemented a proof of concept patch to see whether the buffer pool >> split can improve the performance or not. >> >> Summary of the changes: >> 1. The priority buffers are allocated

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On 5/16/14, 8:15 AM, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote: On 20 Feb 2014, at 01:38, Tom Lane wrote: I am really dubious that letting DBAs manage buffers is going to be an improvement over automatic management. the reason for a feature like that is to define an area of the application which needs more

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ashutosh Bapat >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Haribabu Kommi >>> wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Amit Ka

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On 20 Feb 2014, at 01:38, Tom Lane wrote: > Haribabu Kommi writes: >> I want to propose a new feature called "priority table" or "cache table". >> This is same as regular table except the pages of these tables are having >> high priority than normal tables. These tables are very useful, where a

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

Hello, I applied the patch to current HEAD. There was one failure (attached), freelist.rej Compiled the provided pgbench.c and added following in .conf shared_buffers = 128MB # min 128kB Shared_buffers=64MB

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> > I want to propose a new feature called "priority table" or "

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> > I want to propose a new feature called "priority table" or "cache > >> > table". > >> > This is same as regular table except

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> > I want to propose a new feature called "priority table" or "cache >> > table". >> > This is same as regular table except the pages of these tables are >> > having >> > high priority tha

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Haribabu Kommi writes: > > I want to propose a new feature called "priority table" or "cache table". > > This is same as regular table except the pages of these tables are having > > high priority than normal tables. These tables are very usefu

Re: [HACKERS] Priority table or Cache table

Haribabu Kommi writes: > I want to propose a new feature called "priority table" or "cache table". > This is same as regular table except the pages of these tables are having > high priority than normal tables. These tables are very useful, where a > faster query processing on some particular tabl