Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CANP8+j+2WHmELqGANwVxzZpQUhssTSd_ZPEHVEk-QULq13o05A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 20 February 2017 at 17:32, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Have you checked whether this >>> patch makes any noticeable performance difference? >> >> No, but then we're reducing the number of calls to PgXact directly; >> there is no heuristic involved, its just a pure saving. > > Well, it's adding a branch where there wasn't one. A branch that is avoided in almost all cases, so easy to predict. > Maybe that costs > essentially nothing and the saved write to shared memory saves > something noticeable, but for all I know it's the reverse. If I had > to guess, it would be that neither the costs nor the savings from this > are in the slightest way noticeable on a macrobenchmark, and therefore > there's not much point in changing it, but that could be 100% wrong. Given Andres' earlier measurements, it seems worth testing to me. Hopefully someone can recheck. Thanks in advance. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: