| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist |
| Date: | 2020-09-29 02:48:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LVpq2m11hMXiEZAG6rD-_xVcGwt5wLjZPbW2STpUaktw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 7:21 AM tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> From: Jamison, Kirk/ジャミソン カーク <k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
>
> Also, as Amit-san mentioned, the cause of the slight performance regression when shared_buffers is small needs to be investigated and addressed.
>
Yes, I think it is mainly because extra instructions added in the
optimized code which doesn't make up for the loss when the size of
shared buffers is small.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiro Ikeda | 2020-09-29 02:51:13 | Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-09-29 02:43:03 | Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size |