Re: Slow standby snapshot

From: Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Slow standby snapshot
Date: 2022-07-29 17:24:30
Message-ID: CANtu0ohiyvGNOohEWFo98ySBtifj=yo9JBLd==HkLPrA-ff+PQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello.

Thanks to everyone for the review.

> It seems to me storing the index itself is simpler and maybe faster by
> the cycles to perform addition.

Yes, first version used 1-byte for offset with maximum value of 255.
Agreed, looks like there is no sense to store offsets now.

> A simple patch like this seems to hit the main concern, aiming to keep
> the array from spreading out and impacting snapshot performance for
> SELECTs, yet not doing it so often that the startup process has a
> higher burden of work.

Nice, I'll do performance testing for both versions and master branch
as baseline.

Thanks,
Michail.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-07-29 17:24:50 Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2022-07-29 17:21:40 Re: [Commitfest 2022-07] Patch Triage: Needs Review, Part 1