Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: >> This suggests that in the long term, it might be worth [...] > The other possibility is that the OS is smart enough about moving > things around to get good locality that sticking locality hints on > top doesn't really make any difference. Certainly, I would expect > any OS to be smart enough to allocate backend-local memory on the > same processor where the task is running, and to avoid moving > processes between cells more than necessary. Right. I'm not sure that it will make any more sense to do this than to do raw access to a disk partition. I don't think it's a given that we can do a better job of this than the OS does. > Regarding results instability [...] My working theory is that this > is the result of spinlock contention. > So my theory is that now the performance goes down more or less > "permanently", unless or until there's some momentary break in the > action that lets the queue of people waiting for that spinlock > drain out. This is just a wild-ass guess, and I might be totally > wrong... Well, I suspect that you're basing that guess on enough evidence that it's more likely to be right than the wild-assed guesses I've been throwing out there. :-) I can't say it's inconsistent with anything I've seen. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
