Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction

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 14:22:47
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoby-gU1Uke+z87AJw5FPtdhzmWy=eaomH_4zXGck=jE0Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-09-25 14:24:53 Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-09-25 14:14:48 Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction