Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Report: Linux huge pages with Postgres

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet(at)lwn(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Report: Linux huge pages with Postgres
Date: 2010-11-29 15:52:44
Message-ID: AANLkTin2OrKgg7RJpV6QXqi9JAK09YaQrV0t6TiMFQK-@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet(at)lwn(dot)net> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:27:12 -0500
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> And the bottom line is: if there's any performance benefit at all,
>> it's on the order of 1%.  The best result I got was about 3200 TPS
>> with hugepages, and about 3160 without.  The noise in these numbers
>> is more than 1% though.
>>
>> This is discouraging; it certainly doesn't make me want to expend the
>> effort to develop a production patch.  However, perhaps someone else
>> can try to show a greater benefit under some other test conditions.
>
> Just a quick note: I can't hazard a guess as to why you're not getting
> better results than you are, but I *can* say that putting together a
> production-quality patch may not be worth your effort regardless.  There
> is a nice "transparent hugepages" patch set out there which makes
> hugepages "just happen" when it seems to make sense and the system can
> support it.  It eliminates the need for all administrative fiddling and
> for any support at the application level.

Neat!

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: queejDate: 2010-11-29 16:01:59
Subject: Re: dblink versus long connection strings
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-11-29 15:51:43
Subject: Re: pg_execute_from_file review

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group