Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages?

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>
> I don't want to dismiss what you're saying about heating and cooling
> being unrelated, but I don't find the conclusion that not everything
> can be hot obvious. Maybe "heat" should be relative rather than
> absolute, and maybe that's actually what you meant. There is surely
> some workload where buffer access actually is perfectly uniform, and
> what do you do there? What "temperature" are those buffers?

In that case, hotness, or retention priority, should be relative to
re-population cost.

IE: whether it's likely to still be in the OS cache or not, whether
it's dirty or not, etc.

> It occurs to me that within the prototype patch, even though
> usage_count is incremented in a vastly slower fashion (in a wall time
> sense), clock sweep doesn't take advantage of that. I should probably
> investigate having clock sweep become more aggressive in decrementing
> in response to realizing that it won't get some buffer's usage_count
> down to zero on the next revolution either. There are certainly
> problems with that, but they might be fixable. Within the patch, in
> order for it to be possible for the usage_count to be incremented in
> the interim, an average of 1.5 seconds must pass, so if clock sweep
> were to anticipate another no-set-to-zero revolution, it seems pretty
> likely that it would be exactly right, or if not then close enough,
> since it can only really fail to correct for some buffers getting
> incremented once more in the interim. Conceptually, it would be like
> multiple logical revolutions were merged into one actual one,
> sufficient to have the next revolution find a victim buffer.

Why use time at all? Why not synchronize usage bumpability to clock sweeps?

I'd use a simple bit that the clock sweep clears, and the users set.
Only one increase per sweep.

Or maybe use a decreasing loop count instead of a bit. In any case,
measuring "time" in terms of clock sweeps sounds like a better
proposition.