Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>
Cc: Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some
Date: 2004-10-25 01:18:07
Message-ID: 29890.1098667087@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> writes:
> I see the OS issues related to mapping that much memory as a much bigger
> potential problem.

I see potential problems everywhere I look ;-)

Considering that the available numbers suggest we could win just a few
percent (and that's assuming that all this extra mechanism has zero
cost), I can't believe that the project is worth spending manpower on.
There is a lot of much more attractive fruit hanging at lower levels.
The bitmap-indexing stuff that was recently being discussed, for
instance, would certainly take less effort than this; it would create
no new portability issues; and at least for the queries where it helps,
it could offer integer-multiple speedups, not percentage points.

My engineering professors taught me that you put large effort where you
have a chance at large rewards. Converting PG to mmap doesn't seem to
meet that test, even if I believed it would work.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Curt Sampson 2004-10-25 01:32:55 Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-10-25 00:36:53 Beta4 Bundled ...

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Curt Sampson 2004-10-25 01:32:55 Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some
Previous Message Curt Sampson 2004-10-25 00:30:56 Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some