Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> writes:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Seems to me the overhead of any such scheme would swamp the savings from
>> avoiding kernel/userspace copies ...
> Well, one really can't know without testing, but memory copies are
> extremely expensive if they go outside of the cache.
Sure, but what about all the copying from write queue to page?
>> the locking issues alone would be painful.
> I don't see why they would be any more painful than the current locking
Because there are more locks --- the write queue data structure will
need to be locked separately from the page. (Even with a separate write
queue per page, there will need to be a shared data structure that
allows you to allocate and find write queues, and that thing will be a
subject of contention. See BufMgrLock, which is not held while actively
twiddling the contents of pages, but is a serious cause of contention
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Rod Dutton||Date: 2004-10-24 18:13:23|
|Subject: Queries slow using stored procedures|
|Previous:||From: Curt Sampson||Date: 2004-10-24 05:46:16|
|Subject: Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-10-24 14:46:59|
|Subject: Re: Daylight saving time |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-10-24 14:30:09|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BUG #1290: Default value and ALTER...TYPE |