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

Re: CLOG contention

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: CLOG contention
Date: 2012-01-05 20:25:51
Message-ID: CA+TgmoagzcQR69nSRDHygSggfJiKLWFhunw=uToZga5bWw5SiA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> If we go with such a formula, I think 32 MB would be a more
> appropriate divisor than 128 MB.  Even on very large machines where
> 32 CLOG buffers would be a clear win, we often can't go above 1 or 2
> GB of shared_buffers without hitting latency spikes due to overrun
> of the RAID controller cache.  (Now, that may change if we get DW
> in, but that's not there yet.)  1 GB / 32 is 32 MB.  This would
> leave CLOG pinned at the minimum of 8 buffers (64 KB) all the way up
> to shared_buffers of 256 MB.

That seems reasonable to me.

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-05 20:39:11
Subject: Re: CLOG contention
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-05 20:23:09
Subject: Re: Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time

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