| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com, x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, pg(at)bowt(dot)ie, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Clock with Adaptive Replacement |
| Date: | 2018-05-09 17:37:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0xTYFxLeBzS6cfAHEkd_pancJg_u9GCZVDtXuCp0JrvFg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:00 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Independently of that, it would be probably also useful to avoid
> bumping the reference count multiple times when a buffer is accessed
> by the same backend several times in quick succession. Perhaps this
> could even be as simple as maintaining a list of the last two buffer
> IDs for which we bumped the usage count; if we see one of them again,
> don't bump the usage count again.
Hm. Is the objective here to optimize access patterns or to reduce atomic
operations (or both)? All else being equal, an algorithm that delivers
the similar eviction results with less cache synchronization ought to be
preferred...are the various algorithms scored in that way?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-09 18:55:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Clock with Adaptive Replacement |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-09 17:28:50 | Re: [SPAM] Re: Local partitioned indexes and pageinspect |