| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, tender wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock |
| Date: | 2023-12-18 18:18:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoag=AqxOGzDzeDjhn35EhZ8hWxcRiKzY_dnoszCm09OEA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:53 PM Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
> One page still accommodates 32K transaction statuses under one lock. It feels like a lot. About 1 second of transactions on a typical installation.
>
> When the group commit was committed did we have a benchmark to estimate efficiency of this technology? Can we repeat that test again?
I think we did, but it might take some research to find it in the
archives. If we can, I agree that repeating it feels like a good idea.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-12-18 18:27:42 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
| Previous Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2023-12-18 17:53:43 | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock |