From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
Cc: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some |
Date: | 2004-10-25 01:18:07 |
Message-ID: | 29890.1098667087@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> writes:
> I see the OS issues related to mapping that much memory as a much bigger
> potential problem.
I see potential problems everywhere I look ;-)
Considering that the available numbers suggest we could win just a few
percent (and that's assuming that all this extra mechanism has zero
cost), I can't believe that the project is worth spending manpower on.
There is a lot of much more attractive fruit hanging at lower levels.
The bitmap-indexing stuff that was recently being discussed, for
instance, would certainly take less effort than this; it would create
no new portability issues; and at least for the queries where it helps,
it could offer integer-multiple speedups, not percentage points.
My engineering professors taught me that you put large effort where you
have a chance at large rewards. Converting PG to mmap doesn't seem to
meet that test, even if I believed it would work.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2004-10-25 01:32:55 | Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-10-25 00:36:53 | Beta4 Bundled ... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2004-10-25 01:32:55 | Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some |
Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2004-10-25 00:30:56 | Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some |