Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmoacn3GQTaSsr-q+gfdAS5ZranytFEd-WPLtz_mpf97POA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.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@2ndquadrant.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: