| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC, POC] Don't require a NBuffer sized PrivateRefCount array of local buffer pins |
| Date: | 2014-04-09 13:38:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20140409133834.GI4161@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-04-09 09:17:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > I've tried to reproduce problems around this (when I wrote this), but
> > it's really hard to construct cases that need more than 8 pins. I've
> > tested performance for those cases by simply not using the array, and
> > while the performance suffers a bit, it's not that bad.
>
> Suspended queries won't do it?
What exactly do you mean by "suspended" queries? Defined and started
portals? Recursive query execution?
> Also, it would be good to quantify "not that bad".
The 'not bad' comes from my memory of the benchmarks I'd done after
about 12h of flying around ;).
Yes, it needs real benchmarks. Probably won't get to it the next few
days tho.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-09 13:43:57 | Re: Proposal for Merge Join for Non '=' Operators |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-04-09 13:27:11 | Re: psql \d+ and oid display |