| From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Radosław Smogura <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu> |
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hugetables question |
| Date: | 2011-06-22 11:24:17 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=_Ri4oEBw0jhEC8Epor88A3UOtkw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:56, Radosław Smogura
<rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu> wrote:
> I want to implement hugepages for shared memory
Hi,
Have you read this post by Tom Lane about the performance estimation
and a proof-of-concept patch with hugepages?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01842.php
It's possible that there was a flaw in his analysis, but his
conclusion is that it's not worth it:
> 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.
Regards,
Marti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2011-06-22 12:11:37 | Re: Latch implementation that wakes on postmaster death on both win32 and Unix |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-06-22 10:55:35 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make the visibility map crash-safe. |