Re: Memory Accounting

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Soumyadeep Chakraborty <sochakraborty(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, soumyadeep2007(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Memory Accounting
Date: 2019-09-19 18:00:37
Message-ID: 67f66d2fa39e35aef90093c74531a38dcd5c0f73.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 13:50 -0700, Soumyadeep Chakraborty wrote:
> Hi Jeff,

Hi Soumyadeep and Melanie,

Thank you for the review!

> max_stack_depth max level lazy (ms) eager (ms) (eage
> r/lazy)
> 2MB 82 302.715 427.554 1.4123978
> 3MB 3474 567.829 896.143 1.578191674
> 7.67MB 8694 2657.972 4903.063 1.844663149

Thank you for collecting data on this. Were you able to find any
regression when compared to no memory accounting at all?

It looks like you agree with the approach and the results. Did you find
any other issues with the patch?

I am also including Robert in this thread. He had some concerns the
last time around due to a small regression on POWER.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2019-09-19 18:10:23 Re: dropdb --force
Previous Message Ekin Dursun 2019-09-19 16:38:14 Syntax highlighting for Postgres spec files