| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: resowner "cold start" overhead |
| Date: | 2022-11-01 00:16:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20221101001625.ardg5eman7oiogq2@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-10-31 11:05:32 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> What do you think of my ResourceOwner refactoring patches [1]? Reminded by
> this, I rebased and added it to the upcoming commitfest again.
> With that patch, all resources are stored in the same array and hash. The
> array is part of ResourceOwnerData, so it saves the allocation overhead,
> like the "initialarr" that you suggested. And it always uses the array for
> recently remembered resources, and spills over to the hash for more
> long-lived resources.
>
> Andres, could you repeat your benchmark with [1], to see if it helps?
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2e10b71b-352e-b97b-1e47-658e2669cecb@iki.fi
Just for future readers of this thread: Replied on the other thread.
It does seem to address the performance issue, but I have some architectural
concerns.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2022-11-01 00:17:03 | Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-01 00:15:23 | Re: ResourceOwner refactoring |