Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1+9AcXMBAnWi5ntVwmQfd3pR4m7UMJtoEd1Lb6zPemgHQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Increasing CLOG buffers to 64 helps in reducing the contention due to second
> > > reason. Experiments revealed that increasing CLOG buffers only helps
> > > once the contention around ProcArrayLock is reduced.
> >
>
> Overall this idea sounds promising, but I think the work involved is more
> than the benefit I am expecting for the current optimization we are
> discussing.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Increasing CLOG buffers to 64 helps in reducing the contention due to second
> > > reason. Experiments revealed that increasing CLOG buffers only helps
> > > once the contention around ProcArrayLock is reduced.
> >
>
> Overall this idea sounds promising, but I think the work involved is more
> than the benefit I am expecting for the current optimization we are
> discussing.
>
Sorry, I think last line is slightly confusing, let me try to again write
it:
Overall this idea sounds promising, but I think the work involved is more
than the benefit expected from the current optimization we are
discussing.
than the benefit expected from the current optimization we are
discussing.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: