Re: OS cached buffers (was: [HACKERS] Support Parallel Query Execution

2006-04-14 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jim C. Nasby wrote: > Yeah, my assumption has been that the only way to tell the difference > would be by timing, but I don't know how practical that is. Since > gettime() or whatever EXPLAIN ANALYZE uses is apparently very expensive, > perhaps there's some other alternative. Perhapse the timing in

Re: OS cached buffers (was: [HACKERS] Support Parallel Query Execution

2006-04-13 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 03:38:04PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Is there any pratcical way to tell the difference between a page comming > > from the OS cache and one comming from disk? Or maybe for a set of pages > > an estimate on how many came from cache vs disk? There's some areas > > where

Re: OS cached buffers (was: [HACKERS] Support Parallel Query Execution

2006-04-13 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:02:56PM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote: > > Hannu, > > > > On 4/10/06 2:23 AM, "Hannu Krosing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> The cost of fetching a page from the OS is not really much of an > > >> overhead, > > > > > > Have you tested this ? >

OS cached buffers (was: [HACKERS] Support Parallel Query Execution in Executor)

2006-04-11 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:02:56PM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote: > Hannu, > > On 4/10/06 2:23 AM, "Hannu Krosing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> The cost of fetching a page from the OS is not really much of an > >> overhead, > > > > Have you tested this ? > > I have - the overhead of fetching