Re: things I learned from working on memory allocation

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: things I learned from working on memory allocation
Date: 2014-07-10 00:20:14
Message-ID: CAM3SWZRmuSNukqLqJHw8b3biArnK=xV3czZJGdr2B-9Z-a_Z1g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> I do think that's a problem with our sort implementation, but it's not
>> clear to me whether it's *more* of a problem for parallel sort than it
>> is for single-backend sort.
>
> If you'll forgive me for going on about my patch on this thread, I
> think the pgbench "-c 4" and "-c 1" cases that I tested suggest it is
> a particular problem for parallel sorts, as there is a much bigger
> both absolute and proportional difference in transaction throughput
> between those two with the patch applied. It seems reasonable to
> suppose the difference would be larger still if we were considering a
> single parallel sort, as opposed to multiple independent sorts (of the
> same data) that happen to occur in parallel.

I think that I may have been too optimistic when I said that there was
an apparent trend of memory bandwidth per core merely stagnating:

http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~omutlu/pub/mutlu_memory-scaling_imw13_invited-talk.pdf

As slide 8 indicates, memory capacity per core is expected to go down
30% every two years, while the trend for memory bandwidth per core is
even worse.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-07-10 00:52:23 Re: IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA statement
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-07-09 23:37:00 Re: IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA statement