From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: patch for new feature: Buffer Cache Hibernation |
Date: | 2011-06-01 10:05:37 |
Message-ID: | 4DE60EF1.9050506@2ndQuadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/01/2011 03:03 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Also I really want to see the performance comparison between these two
> approaches in the real world database.
>
Well, tell me how big of a performance improvement you want PgFincore to
win by, and I'll construct a benchmark where it does that. If you pick
a database size that fits in the OS cache, but is bigger than
shared_buffers, the difference between the approaches is huge. The
opposite--trying to find a case where this hibernation approach wins--is
extremely hard to do.
Anyway, further discussion of this patch is kind of a waste right now.
We've never gotten the patch actually sent to the list to establish a
proper contribution (just pointers to a web page), and no feedback on
that or other suggestions for redesign (extension repackaging, GUC
renaming, removing unused code, and a few more). Unless the author
shows up again in the next two weeks, this is getting bounced back with
no review as code we can't use.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2011-06-01 10:09:43 | pg_listener in 9.0 |
Previous Message | Cédric Villemain | 2011-06-01 08:56:43 | Re: patch for new feature: Buffer Cache Hibernation |