From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, neilc(at)samurai(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Thinking about breaking up the BufMgrLock |
Date: | 2005-02-07 15:47:20 |
Message-ID: | 27183.1107791240@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> After much thought, I believe the best way is to implement bufferpools
> (BPs). That is, we don't just have one bufferhash and one LRU, we have
> many pairs. We then work out some mapping by which a block can be known
> to be in a particular BP, then acquire the lock for that BP.
I think this is basically wrongheaded, because it achieves its reduction
in contention by a one-for-one sacrifice of cache allocation efficiency;
that is, any individual page is now fighting for survival in a pool only
1/Nth as large as before. We're going to lose more in I/O than we can
hope to save at the processor level.
I think a clock algorithm or something similar may be a reasonable way
to go, though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-07 15:51:14 | Re: Is there a way to make VACUUM run completely outside transaction |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-07 15:32:10 | Re: Query optimizer 8.0.1 (and 8.0) |