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

Re: PostgreSQL and HugePage

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and HugePage
Date: 2010-10-20 19:28:25
Message-ID: AANLkTinqQXg=00pLy-tdKXjnc-mfc_Hsj82v6w+TVgPg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> I don't think it's a big cost once all the processes
> have been forked if you're reusing them beyond perhaps slightly more
> efficient cache usage.

Hm, this site claims to get a 13% win just from the reduced tlb misses
using a preload hack with Pg 8.2. That would be pretty substantial.

http://oss.linbit.com/hugetlb/


-- 
greg

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-10-20 19:30:01
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade patch application process, and move to /bin?
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2010-10-20 19:17:27
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and HugePage

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