"Jonah H. Harris" <jharris(at)nightstarcorporation(dot)com> writes:
> I agree with Bruce and Tom.
AFAIK Bruce and Tom (and myself) agree that this is a good idea,
provided it makes a noticeable performance difference (and if it
doesn't, it's not worth applying).
> AFAIK and in my experience I don't think it will be a significantly
> measurable increase.
Can you elaborate on this experience?
> Not only that, but the portability issue itself tends to make it
> less desireable.
Well, that's obvious: code that improves PostgreSQL on *all* platforms
is clearly superior to code that only improves it on a couple. That's
not to say that the latter code is absolutely without merit, however.
> Sorry if my comments are out-of-line on this one but it has been a
> thread for some time I'm just kinda tired of reading theory vs
Well, ISTM the easiest way to get some "proof" is to implement it and
benchmark the results. IMHO any claims about performance prior to that
are mostly hand waving.
> Since you are so set on trying to implement this, I'm just wondering
> what documentation has tested evidence of measurable increases in
> similar situations?
(/me wonders if people bother reading the threads they reply to)
According to the HP guys, Oracle saw an 8% performance improvement in
TPC-C when they started using large pages.
To be perfectly honest, I really have no idea if that will translate
into an 8% performance gain for PostgreSQL, or whether the performance
gain only applies if you're using a machine with 16GB of RAM, or
whether the speedup from large pages is really just a correction of
some Oracle deficiency that we don't suffer from, etc. However, I do
think it's worth finding out.
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-09-30 03:48:18|
|Subject: Re: DROP COLUMN misbehaviour with multiple inheritance |
|Previous:||From: Jonah H. Harris||Date: 2002-09-30 02:49:12|
|Subject: Re: making use of large TLB pages|