Re: speedup tidbitmap patch: cache page
От | Teodor Sigaev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: speedup tidbitmap patch: cache page |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 549950FB.2050004@sigaev.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: speedup tidbitmap patch: cache page (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: speedup tidbitmap patch: cache page
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > Oh, that makes sense. Though I wonder if you need to clear the caches at all > when calling tbm_lossify(). Surely it never becomes un-lossified and plus, at > least for lossy_page it would never be set to the current page anyway, it's > either going to be set to InvalidBlockNumber, or some other previous page that agree, fixed > was lossy. I also can't quite see the need to set page to NULL. Surely doing > this would just mean we'd have to lookup the page again once tbm_lossify() is > called if the next loop happened to be the same page? I think this would only be > needed if the hash lookup was going to return a new instance of the page after > we've lossified it, which from what I can tell won't happen. Page could become an invalid pointer, because during tbm_mark_page_lossy() called from tbm_lossify() it could be freed. > I've also attached some benchmark results using your original table from > up-thread. It seems that the caching if the page was seen as lossy is not much > of a help in this test case. Did you find another one where you saw some better > gains? All what I found is about 0.5%... v3 contains your comments but it doesn't use lossy_page cache. -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: