| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(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 14:42:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoacn3GQTaSsr-q+gfdAS5ZranytFEd-WPLtz_mpf97POA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-25 14:47:52 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-25 14:40:25 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |