| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Not HOT enough |
| Date: | 2011-11-23 20:15:36 |
| Message-ID: | 2619.1322079336@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What I think might make more sense is to keep two variables,
>> RecentGlobalXmin with its current meaning and RecentDatabaseWideXmin
>> which considers only xmins of transactions in the current database.
>> Then HOT cleanup could select the appropriate cutoff depending on
>> whether it's working on a shared or non-shared relation.
> Unfortunately, that would have the effect of lengthening the time for
> which ProcArrayLock is held, and as benchmark results from Pavan's
> patch in that area show, that makes a very big difference to total
> throughput on write-heavy workloads.
[ shrug... ] Simon's patch already adds nearly as many cycles in the
hot spot as would be required to do what I suggest.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-11-23 20:32:07 | Re: Not HOT enough |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-11-23 20:14:45 | Re: Not HOT enough |