From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Page replacement algorithm in buffer cache |
Date: | 2013-04-02 16:15:34 |
Message-ID: | 20130402161534.GE2415@alap2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-04-02 11:54:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > That's a very fair point, although not being able to evict pinned
> > buffers is a highly mitigating aspect. Also CLOG is a different beast
> > entirely -- it's much more dense (2 bits!) vs a tuple so a single page
> > can a lot of high priority things. But you could be right anyways.
> >
> > Given that, I wouldn't feel very comfortable with forced eviction
> > without knowing for sure high priority buffers were immune from that.
> > Your nailing idea is maybe the ideal solution. Messing around with
> > the usage_count mechanic is tempting (like raising the cap and making
> > the sweeper more aggressive as it iterates), but probably really
> > difficult to get right, and, hopefully, ultimately moot.
>
> One thought I had for fiddling with usage_count is to make it grow
> additively (x = x + 1) and decay exponentially (x = x >> 1). I'm not
> sure the idea is any good, but one problem with the current system is
> that it's pretty trivial for a buffer to accumulate five touches, and
> after that we lose all memory of what the frequency of access is, so a
> pages of varying different levels of "hotness" can all have usage
> count 5. This might allow a little more refinement without letting
> the time to degrade the usage count get out of control.
>
> But, having said that, I still think the best idea is what Andres
> proposed, which pretty much matches my own thoughts: the bgwriter
> needs to populate the free list, so that buffer allocations don't have
> to wait for linear scans of the buffer array. That's just plain too
> slow.
That way the usagecount should go down far more slowly which essentially makes
it more granular. And I think fiddling on that level before we have a more
sensible buffer acquiration implementation is pretty premature since that will
change too much.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-04-02 16:19:05 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2013-04-02 16:03:10 | Re: in-catalog Extension Scripts and Control parameters (templates?) |