| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame |
| Date: | 2012-01-02 17:30:01 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKtvyDcV4zTr7bq7t6cA2nBfLxCJ8tQgVBnc5ddRPO+Bg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Simon is proposing to bound the
> really bad case where you flip through the entire ring multiple times
> before you find a buffer, and that may well be worth doing. But I
> think even scanning 100 buffers every time you need to bring something
> in is too slow. What's indisputable is that a SELECT-only workload
> which is larger than shared_buffers can be very easily rate-limited by
> the speed at which BufFreelistLock can be taken and released. If you
> have a better idea for solving that problem, I'm all ears...
I felt we were on the right track here for a while.
Does anyone dispute that BufFreelistLock is a problem? shared buffer
replacement is *not* O(k) and it definitely needs to be.
Does anyone have a better idea for reducing BufFreelistLock
contention? Something simple that will work for 9.2?
What steps are there between here and committing the freelist_ok.v2.patch?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-02 17:41:47 | Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-01-02 17:17:34 | Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches |