From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
Date: | 2014-09-25 14:24:53 |
Message-ID: | 20140925142453.GE9633@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-25 10:22:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > That leads me to wonder: Have you measured different, lower, number of
> > buffer mapping locks? 128 locks is, if we'd as we should align them
> > properly, 8KB of memory. Common L1 cache sizes are around 32k...
>
> Amit has some results upthread showing 64 being good, but not as good
> as 128. I haven't verified that myself, but have no reason to doubt
> it.
How about you push the spinlock change and I crosscheck the partition
number on a multi socket x86 machine? Seems worthwile to make sure that
it doesn't cause problems on x86. I seriously doubt it'll, but ...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-09-25 14:26:13 | Re: RLS Design |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-25 14:22:47 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |