| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Hari Babu <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for hint bit i/o mitigation |
| Date: | 2013-01-18 15:36:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0z67dQr-SbQqBpvhPrfF9vZj8O4qwDZKG_QGSB2SGy7WA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Sorry for the delay in updating the hackers list with the current status.
>
> I recently did some profiling using perf on PostgreSQL 9.2 with and without our patch.
>
> I noticed that maximum time is being spent on heapgettup function. Further investigation and a bit of a hunch leads me to believe that we may be adversely affecting the visibility map optimisation that directly interact with the visibility functions, that our patch straight away affects.
>
> If this is the case, we may really need to get down to the design of our patch, and maybe see which visibility function/functions we are affecting, and see if we can mitigate the affect.
>
> Please let me know your inputs on this.
Any scenario that involves non-trivial amount of investigation or
development should result in us pulling the patch for rework and
resubmission in later 'fest....it's closing time as they say :-).
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-18 15:43:06 | Re: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Centralize Assert* macros into c.h so its common between backend/frontend |
| Previous Message | bricklen | 2013-01-18 15:35:43 | Re: BUG #7814: Rotation of the log is not carried out. |