| 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: | 2014-10-02 14:36:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20141002143623.GJ7158@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-25 10:42:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > 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 ...
>
> OK.
Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-02 14:40:30 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-02 14:34:57 | Re: Inefficient barriers on solaris with sun cc |