[RFC, POC] Don't require a NBuffer sized PrivateRefCount array of local buffer pins

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: [RFC, POC] Don't require a NBuffer sized PrivateRefCount array of local buffer pins
Date: 2014-03-21 18:22:31
Message-ID: 20140321182231.GA17111@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


I've been annoyed at the amount of memory used by the backend local
PrivateRefCount array for a couple of reasons:

a) The performance impact of AtEOXact_Buffers() on Assert() enabled
builds is really, really annoying.
b) On larger nodes, the L1/2/3 cache impact of randomly accessing
several megabyte big array at a high frequency is noticeable. I've
seen the access to that to be the primary (yes, really) source of
pipeline stalls.
c) On nodes with significant shared_memory the sum of the per-backend
arrays is a significant amount of memory, that could very well be
used more beneficially.

So what I have done in the attached proof of concept is to have a small
(8 currently) array of (buffer, pincount) that's searched linearly when
the refcount of a buffer is needed. When more than 8 buffers are pinned
a hashtable is used to lookup the values.

That seems to work fairly well. On the few tests I could run on my
laptop - I've done this during a flight - it's a small performance win
in all cases I could test. While saving a fair amount of memory.

Alternatively we could just get rid of the idea of tracking this per
backend, relying on tracking via resource managers...


Andres Freund

Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Make-backend-local-tracking-of-buffer-pins-more-effi.patch text/x-patch 16.7 KB


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-03-21 18:26:47 Re: equalTupleDescs() ignores ccvalid/ccnoinherit
Previous Message Noah Misch 2014-03-21 17:49:42 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To: