| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention |
| Date: | 2015-07-01 10:11:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K7nqnFh_fCE0bMKC9yTehfDWY9EvYmpDSkv_x=kYjCUA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 1 July 2015 at 09:00, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think it will be better to partition it or use it in some other way to
avoid
>> two concurrent writers block at it, however if you want to first see the
>> test results with this, then that is also okay.
>
>
> Many updates would be on same page, so partitioning it would need to be
at least 4-way to be worth doing. Maybe we could stripe into 512 bye pages.
>
Sure, it makes sense to try that way, once you have that ready, I can
try this out along with ProcArrayLock patch to see the impact.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-07-01 10:14:02 | Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-07-01 10:07:09 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |